a case study of the implementation of joint planning … · bs, excelsior college, ny, 1999 . fort...
TRANSCRIPT
A CASE STUDY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF JOINT PLANNING IN AN ORGANIZATION UNDERGOING TRANSFORMATION TO JOINT FORCE
HEADQUARTERS IN ONE STATE
A thesis presented to the Faculty of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE
Joint Planning
by
Stephen G. Lind, MAJ, ARNG BS, Excelsior College, NY, 1999
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 2008
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
ii
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 13-06-2008
2. REPORT TYPE Master’s Thesis
3. DATES COVERED (From - To) AUG 2007 – JUN 2008 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 5b. GRANT NUMBER
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE A CASE STUDY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF JOINT
PLANNING IN AN ORGANIZATION UNDERGOING TRANSFORMATION TO JOINT FORCE HEADQUARTERS
IN ONE STATE
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) MAJ Stephen G. Lind
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) U.S. Army Command and General Staff College ATTN: ATZL-SWD-GD Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027-2301
8. PERFORMING ORG REPORT NUMBER
10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)
9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimited 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT
The National Guard began the process of transforming the State Military Headquarters in all 54 states and territories by converting from an Administrative and Oversight Headquarters to a Joint Operational Activity in 2003. This study investigates the changes brought about by the implementation of the joint planning process with relation to the transformation to Joint Force headquarters in California. It explores the impact of the joint planning process to current operational plans within California and the challenges and successes experienced during the process. In doing so, it focuses on the effects the JFHQ transformation process has had in California. One critical component to operating in a joint environment is the ability for the organization to conduct Joint Planning using the Joint Operation Planning and Execution System (JOPES) format. All of the existing plans for each state would have to be updated and converted to the JOPES format, adding to the challenges of learning a new planning format and training planners to use the new format. 15. SUBJECT TERMS Transformation, Joint Planning, Joint Force headquarters Transformation, JFHQ Transformation
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE
17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
18. NUMBER OF PAGES 19b. PHONE NUMBER (include area code)
(U) (U) (U) (U) 147 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
iii
MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE THESIS APPROVAL PAGE
Name of Candidate: Major Stephen G. Lind Thesis Title: A CASE STUDY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF JOINT PLANNING
IN AN ORGANIZATION UNDERGOING TRANSFORMATION TO JOINT FORCE HEADQUARTERS IN ONE STATE
Approved by: , Thesis Committee Chair LTC Prisco R. Hernandez, Ph.D. , Member Stephen D. Coats, Ph.D. , Member Stephen G. Whitworth Accepted this 13th day of June 2008 by: , Director, Graduate Degree Programs Robert F. Baumann, Ph.D. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student author and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to this study should include the foregoing statement.)
iv
ABSTRACT
A CASE STUDY OF JOINT PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION IN AN ORGANIZATION UNDERGOING TRANSFORMATION TO JOINT FORCE HEADQUARTERS IN ONE STATE, by Major Stephen G. Lind, 147 pages.
The National Guard has been in a nearly constant state of change, in one form or another, since its inception. The events that have transpired since the attacks on the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001 demonstrated the need for the next major evolution of the National Guard.
The National Guard began the process of transforming the State Military Headquarters in all 54 states and territories by converting from an Administrative and Oversight Headquarters to a Joint Operational Activity in 2003. This study investigates the changes brought about by the implementation of the joint planning process with relation to the transformation to Joint Force headquarters in California. It explores the impact of the joint planning process to current operational plans within California and the challenges and successes experienced during the process. In doing so, it focuses on the effects the JFHQ transformation process has had in California.
One critical component to operating in a joint environment is the ability for the organization to conduct Joint Planning using the Joint Operation Planning and Execution System (JOPES) format. All of the existing plans for each state would have to be updated and converted to the JOPES format, adding to the challenges of learning a new planning format and training planners to use the new format.
This study finds that resourcing has been the most significant challenge to the
transformation process with regards to joint planning. The planning staff within the J-5 has suffered from a lack of sufficient personnel to conduct both strategic and operational planning simultaneously. Strategic planning has been extremely effective while operational planning has produced mixed results. Personnel within the joint staff have not been trained on the Joint Operations Planning Process (JOPP) which further hampers its operational planning capability. The lack of trained planners has slowed attempts to update and transition current “on the shelf” plans from the old “scenario” based plans (earthquake, civil disturbance, flood, etc.) to new “capabilities” based plans (transportation, security, RSOI, etc.).
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank several key people who without their knowledge, expertise
and commitment to the U.S. Army and the National Guard, this paper would not be
possible. First of all, thank you to my wonderful wife Debra, who put up with my long
nights of research and study and provided invaluable assistance, proofing my work and
helping me make sense with my information. Thank you to LTC Prisco Hernandez, PhD,
for your editorial assistance. Thank you to the California National Guard Joint Staff, for
their assistance in explaining the JFHQ transformation concept and their thoughts about
joint planning and the future of the California National Guard. I would also like to thank,
Dr. Stephen Coats and Mr. Stephen Whitworth, instructors and advisors at the Command
and General Staff College for their insights and expertise.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE THESIS APPROVAL PAGE ............ iii
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................v
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................... vi
ACRONYMS..................................................................................................................... ix
ILLUSTRATIONS .......................................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1
Background..................................................................................................................... 1 Background of the Problem ............................................................................................ 4 Statement of the Problem................................................................................................ 5 The Purpose of the Study................................................................................................ 9 Research Objective ....................................................................................................... 10 Scope............................................................................................................................. 10
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................11
BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................... 11 Review of the Literature ............................................................................................... 11 Transformation.............................................................................................................. 12 Joint Planning ............................................................................................................... 21 Doctrine ........................................................................................................................ 27 California Specific Documents..................................................................................... 31 Working Issues ............................................................................................................. 40 Summary of the Literature............................................................................................ 41
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................44
Description of Items to Be Analyzed............................................................................ 44 Interviews...................................................................................................................... 45 Research........................................................................................................................ 46 Methods of Analysis ..................................................................................................... 47 Conclusions................................................................................................................... 49 Threats to the Objectivity of the Research Challenged ................................................ 49
vii
CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS..................................................................................................50
Military Decision Making Process ............................................................................... 50 Joint Operation Planning Process ................................................................................. 58 California Military Department Organizational Structure............................................ 63 The Interview Process................................................................................................... 66
Question #1 ............................................................................................................66 Question #2 ............................................................................................................67 Question #3 ............................................................................................................67
Analysis: ........................................................................................................... 72 Question #4 ............................................................................................................75
Analysis ............................................................................................................ 80 Question #5 ............................................................................................................82
Analysis ............................................................................................................ 85 Question #6 ............................................................................................................87
Analysis ............................................................................................................ 92 Question #7 ............................................................................................................93
Analysis ............................................................................................................ 99 Question #8 ..........................................................................................................102
Analysis .......................................................................................................... 105 Question #9 ..........................................................................................................105
Analysis .......................................................................................................... 107 Question #10 ........................................................................................................108
Analysis .......................................................................................................... 111
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................112
Summary of Findings from Chapter 4 ........................................................................ 112 JFHQ Joint Planning Challenges And Concerns ........................................................ 112
Lack of published plans .......................................................................................112 Lack of Trained Planners .....................................................................................113 Organizational Structure and Resourcing ............................................................114 Requirements for External Support .....................................................................115
Positive changes.......................................................................................................... 115 More Formal Planning Process............................................................................115 Strategic Planning ................................................................................................115 State Active Duty (SAD) System as a Force Provider ........................................116 California Specific Documents ............................................................................116
Recommendations from the interviews ...................................................................... 117 Additional Duty Appointments for JPG Members ..............................................117 Increase the Planning Capability of the J-5 .........................................................117 Move Operational Planning to the J-3 .................................................................118 Return operational Planning Capability to Service Components ........................118
What Do the Results Mean? ....................................................................................... 118 Were There Any Unexpected Findings?..................................................................... 119 Recommendations....................................................................................................... 120
viii
Lack of published plans .......................................................................................120 Lack of Trained Planners .....................................................................................121 Organizational Structure and Resource Issues.....................................................121
Potential Areas for Further Study ............................................................................... 122
APPENDIX A..................................................................................................................123
APPENDIX B ..................................................................................................................126
BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................128
FURTHER READING ....................................................................................................131
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST ....................................................................................133
ix
ACRONYMS
AC Active Component (Active Duty)
AC/RC Active Component/Reserve Component
ADSW Active Duty Special Work
AGR Active Guard Reserve
AMA American Management Association
ANG Air National Guard
AR Army Reserve
ARFORGEN Army Force Generation Model
ARNG Army National Guard
BCT Brigade Combat Team
BCTP Battle Command Training Program
CAP Crisis Action Planning
CCIR Commanders Critical Information Requirements
CMD California Military Department
CNG California National Guard
CNGB Chief National Guard Bureau
COA Course of Action
COCOM Combatant Commander
COG Continuity of Governance
CONPLAN Contingency Plan
COOP Continuity of Operations
CPX Command Post Exercise
x
CSIS Center for Strategic and International Studies
CRS Congressional Research Service
DA Department of the Army
DoD Department of Defense
DSM Decision Support Matrix
EMAC Emergency Management Assistance Compact
EXORD Execution Order
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FCS Future Combat Systems
FIRO Force Integration Readiness Officer
FM Field Manual
FRAGO Fragmentary Order
FTM Full-Time Manning
GAO Government Accounting Office
GWOT Global War on Terror
JAEP Joint Air Execution Plan
JAOPP Joint Air Operations Planning Process
JCS Joint Chiefs of Staff
JFHQ Joint Force headquarters
JMD Joint Manning Document
JOC Joint Operations Center
JOPES Joint Operation Planning and Execution System
JOPP Joint Operation Planning Process
xi
JP Joint Publication
JPG Joint Planning Group
JPME Joint Professional Military Education
JPOC Joint Planning Orientation Course
JROC Joint Requirements Oversight Committee
JRSOI Joint Reception, Staging and Onward Integration
JTD Joint Table of Distribution
JTF Joint Task Force
MDMP Military Decision Making Process
MOB Mobilization Officer
MOS Military Occupational Specialty
NG National Guard
NGB National Guard Bureau
NG/R National Guard/Reserve
NMS National Military Strategy
NORTHCOM US Northern Command
OC Observer Controller
OES Office of Emergency Services
OPG Operations Planning Group
OPLAN Operations Plan
OPORD Operations Order
OPTEMPO Operations Tempo
OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense
xii
OTS Off the Shelf
PEC Professional Education Center
PME Professional Military Education
POC Point of Contact
POMSO Plans, Operations and Military Support Officer (J-3)
POTO Plans, Operations and Training Officer (G-3)
PTDO Prepare to Deploy Order
RC Reserve Component
SAD State Active Duty
SECDEF Secretary of Defense
SECFOR Security Forces
SMD State Military Department
SME Subject Matter Expert
SMH State Military Headquarters
SMR State Military Reserve
SR Strategic Reserve
STARC State Area Command
TDA Table of Distribution and Allowances
TF Task Force
TPFDD Time Phased Force Deployment Data
UMD Unit Manning Document
USARC US Army Reserve Component
xiii
ILLUSTRATIONS
Page Figure 1. California Military Department Organization (Pre-2003) .................................7
Figure 2. JFHQ-State FOC Guidelines............................................................................19
Figure 3. Strategic Planning Process...............................................................................23
Figure 4. Schlieffen Plan .................................................................................................24
Figure 5. Adaptive Planning Concept .............................................................................26
Figure 6. Adaptive Planning Processes ...........................................................................27
Figure 7. Joint Operations Planning Process (JOPP) ......................................................28
Figure 8. Joint Operations Planning Products .................................................................29
Figure 9. Planning During Execution..............................................................................30
Figure 10. Overlapping Mission Requirements ................................................................32
Figure 11. California Military Department Vision............................................................34
Figure 12. California Military Department Mission .........................................................34
Figure 13. California Military Department Core Competencies.......................................35
Figure 14. CMD Joint Planning Group Composition .......................................................37
Figure 15. CMD Joint Planning Group Action Checklist .................................................38
Figure 16. OPG Plans and Operations Synchronization ...................................................40
Figure 17. Figure 9, Steps of the MDMP process .............................................................51
Figure 18. OPORD format (page 1) ..................................................................................54
Figure 19. OPORD format (page 2) ..................................................................................55
Figure 20. OPORD Annexes .............................................................................................56
Figure 21. MDMP vs. JOPP Comparison .........................................................................59
Figure 22. Joint Planning group Composition...................................................................61
xiv
Figure 23. Mission Analysis – Joint vs. Army Comparison .............................................62
Figure 24. Crisis Action Planning Process........................................................................63
Figure 25. California Military Department Organizational Structure (pre-2003).............64
Figure 26. Current California Military Department Organizational Structure..................65
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Background
The National Guard is the oldest military organization in the United States. The
concept of the National Guard came from England. It was initially created as a militia to
protect the holdings and settlements when the colonists settled in the New World. It was
formed on December 13, 1636, in Salem, Massachusetts. This date is the recognized
birthday of the National Guard.
In 1637, the English settlements in North America were a tiny fringe along the Eastern seaboard. As settlements pushed west into the interior, the institution of the militia, which the colonists brought with them from England, went with them. The militia tradition meant citizens organizing themselves into military units, responsible for their own defense. The militia, later called the National Guard, has fought in all the nation's major wars, as it fights today in Iraq and Afghanistan. (NGB 2007) The National Guard has undergone many changes since its inception. It contained
the majority of the US military forces in the 19th century and provided the bulk of troops
during the Mexican War, the early months of the Civil War, and the Spanish-American
War (NGB 2007). National Defense legislation increased the role of the National Guard
and officially designated it as a Reserve force for the U.S. Army in 1903 (NGB 2007).
National Guard aviation units were split from the Army and re-formed to create the Air
National Guard after World War II.
The National Guard has been in a nearly constant state of change, in one form or
another, since its inception. Some of these changes have been necessary to keep the
National Guard relevant to the changes that occurred on in the United States over time.
2
Some changes, however, were profound and changed the very organization and structure
of the National Guard.
The Militia Act of 1903, (also known as the Dick Act), changed the structure of
the National Guard and standardized its organization within each state across the Nation.
The 1903 Militia Act, which replaced the old Militia Act of 1792, divided all male
citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 into the organized militia (National Guard) and
the reserve militia. In addition, it mandated that, within five years, the pay, discipline and
equipment of the National Guard would be the same as that of the Regular Army (Snook
(1), 2008).
Increased federal funding would compensate Guardsmen for summer training
camps and joint maneuvers with the Regular Army. States were required to hold at least
24 drills (instructional periods) each year, and some National Guard officers could now
attend Regular Army schools. The War Department assigned Regular Army officers to
each state as advisors, instructors and inspectors and enabled states to exchange outdated
weapons and equipment for current issue items.
The War Department also created the Division of Militia Affairs, the forerunner
of the National Guard Bureau, to oversee National Guard organization and training. The
Dick Act was a landmark. It created a stronger and more professional National Guard to
serve as the nation’s second line of defense. (Snook (1), 2008)
During World War II, the National Guard experienced a full mobilization and
fought alongside its counterparts in the active duty military. In September 1940, the first
peacetime draft in American history was authorized by Congress. In conjunction with the
Selective Service Act, the National Guard of the United States was ordered into active
3
military service for one year of preparedness training to ensure it was adequately trained
should the nation enter the looming conflict.
The phased mobilization began on September 16, 1940, and was finally
completed in early spring of 1941. Thus, when the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor
brought the United States into World War II at the end of 1941, America was not wholly
unprepared. National Guard forces had been mobilized for almost a year. (Snook (2),
2008)
The Air Force was organized as a separate military branch after World War II and
the National Guard transformed again to create the Army National Guard and the Air
National Guard. By July 1, 1946, the Army National Guard was organized into 5,150
federally recognized units, with a total strength slightly in excess of 350,000 soldiers. At
the same time the Air National Guard was organized into 527 federally recognized units,
consisting of 27 combat wings with a total strength of nearly 50,000 airmen. Recruiting
by both organizations was greatly assisted by the reintroduction of a peacetime draft in
1948. Nevertheless, the reorganization of both the Army and Air National Guard was
accomplished with amazing speed and efficiency. (Snook (3), 2008)
The next major change came as a result of the Goldwater/Nichols Act in 1986
when the military, as a whole, was required to train and work together as a joint entity.
The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, sponsored
by Senator Barry Goldwater and Representative Bill Nichols, caused a major
reorganization of the Department of Defense (DoD). It was the most significant change
since the National Security Act of 1947.
4
Operational authority of the DoD was centralized through the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff as opposed to the service chiefs. The chairman was designated as the
principal military advisor to the President, the National Security Council and the
Secretary of Defense. The Act established the position of Vice-Chairman and streamlined
the operational chain of command from the President to the Secretary of Defense to the
Unified Commanders. (NDU, 2008)
The various services and components within the Department of Defense,
including the National Guard, had been operating as separate organizations up to this
point, even when involved in the same operations. The methods of communicating
within those agencies were not standardized so communication, in many instances, was
not possible and coordination was almost non-existent
Background of the Problem
Reserve and National Guard units were configured as a strategic reserve for the
Cold War that would assist active duty forces in time of war. They are now being used as
regular operational forces to augment and supplement the active duty forces during
continuing operations. The policies, budgets, mobilization plans, and training governing
those units may need to be modified in order for them to transform from a strategic
reserve to an operational force. There was a large surge of National Guard and Reserve
forces for the 1990-1991 Gulf War. The Guard and Reserve have been called upon to
accept more missions in support of the active Army ever since that time. Most of these
missions were stability operations of limited duration. However, the current wars are
much longer than expected or planned and all U.S. military forces are stretched to the
breaking point. (Woodring 2007, 4-5)
5
The events that have occurred since the attacks on the World Trade Center on 11
September 2001 demonstrate the need for the next major evolution of the National Guard.
The mobilizations and troop rotations used to support Operations Iraqi Freedom and
Enduring Freedom have taxed the entire military structure. The National Guard was
tasked to step up to support both operations and is currently providing that support. our
political leadership, Soldiers, families and, our nation must come to an understanding of
the changed role of the reserve component.
LTG James J. Lovelace, Jr., Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3, United States Army,
testifying before the Commission on National Guard and Reserves on 12 April 2007, had
this to say about the National Guard and Reserves, “As a part of the operational force
pool, RC units will no longer deploy every now and again; they must be ready for
deployment every five years—our nation requires it.” (Lovelace, 2004, 8)
As a result of the new strategic environment, the National Guard is no longer
being used as the strategic reserve force that it had been organized into and funded for by
the Department of Defense. The number and frequency of current mobilizations require
that the National Guard be trained, equipped and funded to the same levels as their active
duty counterparts. The National Guard needs a better organizational structure to support
the current mobilizations. It also needs a structure that would ensure seamless transfer of
authority and an organizational structure to adequately support domestic operations
during state emergencies and regional disasters.
Statement of the Problem
The National Guard began the process of transforming the State Military
Headquarters in all fifty-four states and territories by transforming from an
6
Administrative & Oversight Headquarters to a Joint Operational Activity in 2003.
Lieutenant General (LTG) H. Steven Blum, the Chief, National Guard Bureau (CNGB),
announced that the headquarters of all fifty states, three territories, and the District of
Columbia would begin transforming to a Joint Force headquarters structure at a Pentagon
press conference on Friday, 16 May 2003. He said, "We will transform the National
Guard, both the Air National Guard and the Army National Guard, to be a joint team, a
team with the five other services - the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps,
the Coast Guard - and the seven Reserve Components, so that the citizens of our great
nation get the best of all of their capabilities and the effects that a joint team can
produce." (Defense Link Online, 2003)
The transformation to a joint operating activity provided a universal command
structure that allows the states to create joint task force (JTF) units to support state
emergencies and provide support to other states during times of disaster. It also creates a
dual status commander that allows the National Guard to support and be supported by
federal troops (NGB C&IP, 2006, iii, iv).
There was never a need for personnel trained in joint planning in the National
Guard State Headquarters previous to this announcement. Each state headquarters
consisted of an Army Guard headquarters staff, an Air Guard headquarters staff and the
State Military Department (SMD) headquarters staff. The state headquarters organization
in California prior to the JFHQ transformation was unique in that it contained a state
militia within the headquarters structure, in addition to the other state military
headquarters. (See figure 1). California did not have any Navy, Marine or Coast Guard
members assigned to the state military headquarters, nor were there any positions
specified. Each Service Component staff worked primarily in its own areas and operated
according to its own service specific doctrine.
Figure 1. California Military Department Organization (Pre-2003) Source: Krauss, W. Fritz, J-5, California National Guard, 2008
Each Joint Force headquarters is expected to operate in a fully joint environment
when the transformation is completed. One of the critical functions of operating in a
fully joint environment is the ability to conduct joint planning. The transformation
process created some unique challenges in that the states were tasked to convert their
state military headquarters to Joint Force headquarters (JFHQ) elements with no
7
8
resourcing and no additional manpower. The NGB Concept and Implementation Plan
(C& IP) states:
“Implementation of the Concept Plan is not contingent on receiving resources from the DOD, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the Departments of the Army and Air Force above and beyond those resources already programmed for the Army National Guard (ARNG) and Air National Guard (ANG). There will be no growth of ARNG or ANG manpower. The JFHQ-State will be built using existing requirements from the States’ Table of Distribution and Allowances (TDA) and from the Unit Manning Document (UMD)” (NGB C&IP, 2006, 1). Each position that transformed from a service specific position to a joint position
had to be filled using available manpower and without any additional funding or
resources for these newly created positions. One critical component to operating in a
joint environment is the ability for the organization to conduct the Joint Operation
Planning Process (JOPP) and organize joint plans in the Joint Operation Planning and
Execution (JOPES) format. In addition to the challenges of learning a new planning
process and training planners to use the new format, all of the existing plans for each
state would have to be updated and converted to the JOPES format.
These changes created some unique challenges within each state headquarters; 1)
the transformation of the State Headquarters from an Operation Headquarters to Joint
Force headquarters; 2) new mission requirements; 3) a new organizational structure; 4)
new planning process; and 5) the need to ensure all critical joint positions were filled
with trained and qualified personnel (NGB C&IP, 2006, 1-2, 11-12). To date, all fifty-
four states and territories have started the transformation process but none of them have
completed it. The process cannot be completed until the organization has been designated
a Joint Operating Activity by DoD through the Joint Staff (NGB J-5, 8). The
9
requirements needed to complete the JFHQ transformation process are outlined in chapter
two.
The primary question addressed by this paper is: “What are the most significant
challenges to the implementation of a doctrinally correct joint planning process when
transforming from a state military headquarters to a Joint Force headquarters in
California?” To answer this question, several secondary questions need to be addressed.
• How is Joint Planning currently conducted?
• How was planning conducted prior to transformation?
• What checks are conducted to ensure that joint planning is conducted in a
doctrinally correct format?
• What are the resource documents?
• How is the training of joint planners conducted?
• How is training documented?
• What is the current training plan?
• What is the impact on existing plans?
• What training has been conducted to convert existing plans to the joint planning
format?
The Purpose of the Study
This study investigates the changes brought about by the implementation of the
joint planning process with relation to the transformation to a Joint Force headquarters in
California. It explores the impact of the joint planning process on current operational
plans within California and the challenges and successes experienced during the process.
In doing so, it will focus on what effects this process has had in California.
10
Research Objective
The research objective for this paper is to identify the challenges joint planners
face when transforming to a doctrinally correct Joint Force headquarters in a formerly
non-joint organization. The process of Joint Force headquarters transformation still
continues in each of the fifty-four states and territories. This study will also identify any
successes and solutions to the challenges of transformation. The results of this research
will be presented to the planning sections in the J-3 and J-5 at the National Guard Bureau
headquarters to assist them in addressing issues related to the Joint Force headquarters
transformation process.
Scope
The focus of this paper is limited to the challenges experienced in implementing a
doctrinally correct joint planning process within a Joint Force headquarters undergoing
transformation in California. Research includes guidance issued from the National Guard
Bureau (NGB) and Department of Defense (DoD) specific to Joint Force headquarters
transformation and implementation.
Research for this paper does not include challenges experienced when
implementing a doctrinally correct joint planning process within a Joint Force
headquarters undergoing transformation in any other state. The differences in
organizational structure and size of forces assigned to each state are significant enough to
warrant research outside the scope of this paper.
11
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
BACKGROUND
A review of the literature is necessary to create an understanding of the dynamics
involved in the process of joint planning and the guidance issued to the states during the
transformation to Joint Force headquarters process.
This thesis began by outlining the origins and transformations in the National
Guard structure, both statutorily and organizationally, by describing how it has changed
through the years to meet the changing needs of the nation and the active duty military. It
also identified the need for the National Guard to undergo further transformation due to
the nature and relative frequency of significant federal mobilizations since the attacks on
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001. This need for further transformation
led to the current transition of the State Military Headquarters to a Joint Force
headquarters.
The transformation to a Joint Force headquarters created the need for personnel
trained in joint planning. Planners also need to understand how the JOPP works and
determine whether contingency planning or crisis action planning would be appropriate.
Review of the Literature
Existing literature related to the question, “What are the most significant
challenges to the implementation of a doctrinally correct joint planning process when
transforming from a state military headquarters to a Joint Force headquarters in
California”, falls into five broad categories: 1) Transformation, 2) Joint Planning, 3)
12
Doctrine, 4) California Specific Documents, and 5) Working Issues that state Joint Force
headquarters staffs are addressing. Each category addresses several secondary questions
and provides key information for answering the primary question. This paper covers
each of these categories and the appropriate references individually. The information
gathered that related directly to the JFHQ transformation and guidance issued to the
states in support of the transformation was limited to literature written after April 2003.
The initial guidance that started the transformation process was issued in this month,
therefore information regarding JFHQ transformation written prior to February 2003 is
not current enough to provide any data relevant to the research scope of this paper.
Transformation
“Transformation is a state of mind. It is about how we think, organize and approach the future. It is how we employ our citizen soldiers and airmen, their units, equipment and capabilities in new and more effective ways.”
—LTG H. Steven Blum1
There is a tremendous amount of data available on the subject of transformation.
Most of this documentation focuses on modernizing the military forces and a significant
amount of material that focuses on Joint Force headquarters transformation. This section
also contains guidance regarding JFHQ transformation issued by both the Department of
Defense (DoD), and the National Guard Bureau (NGB). The literature contained in this
section focuses on information related to transformation and, specifically, JFHQ
transformation that was used to answer the questions outlined in this paper.
Stephenson and Kem both provide additional insight into the military
transformation concept, Stephenson from a philosophical standpoint, and Kem from a
1 Source: Haskell, Bob. “Blum Addresses the Commanders in Chief,” The On Guard, April 2004, vol XXXII, 5, p. 6
13
practical standpoint. Stephenson draws the parallels between the current military
transformation model described by then Chief of Staff of the Army, General Peter J.
Schoomaker and the paradoxical trinity described by Carl von Clausewitz in his book,
“On War”. He goes on to describe how the “Trinity of Transformation”, Conceptual,
Technological and Logistical can be directly associated with Clausewitz’s “Paradoxical
Trinity”, Passion, Policy and Probability (Stephenson 2006).
Kem’s view of transformation focuses on the practical viewpoint and tackles the
concept from an “Ends, Ways, and Means” perspective. He asserts that transformation
“addresses three major areas – how we do business inside the department, how we work
with interagency and multinational partners, and how we fight” (Kem 2006). He
describes transformation as being like the “transformer” toy. It looks like an ordinary
vehicle initially but the parts move and bend to reshape the vehicle into a robot warrior
with a totally different purpose, appearance and way of performing (Kem 2006).
The “transformer” toy represents a different mindset when looking at military
transformation showing how changes can completely alter the look and structure of an
organization. The organizational structure, functions and operational aspects of the State
Joint Force headquarters will be vastly different from the traditional state military
headquarters when transformation is complete. The processes used by the traditional
state military headquarters no longer apply to the joint environment. The addition of the
joint staff completely changes the relationships between the Service Components and sets
up a single (joint) staff structure to exercise operational control over all assigned military
forces.
14
Noonan and Lewis argue that the Goldwater-Nichols legislation in 1986 was a
result of the inter-service rivalry and the inability of the US military forces to work
effectively together in joint operations. They describe the Iranian hostage rescue attempt
(1980) and the invasion of Grenada (1983) as examples of this problem (Noonan, Lewis
2003). Goldwater-Nichols was the catalyst for the current command structure we see in
today’s military and provided the framework for the development of the current Joint
Force headquarters concept.
Logan, in his strategy research project for the U.S. Army War College (USAWC),
described the doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education,
personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF) implications of the JFHQ transformation process.
He also talked about funding, which was a primary concern for the states in
implementing the process. He said,” There are three implications of funding for the
JFHQ. The first is that the current Program Objective Memorandum (POM) only
identifies within a Service budget, funding for their appropriate Table of Distribution and
Allowances (TDA), Modified Table of Organization and Equipment (MTOE), or Unit
Manning Document (UMD). The second implication is, who is the identified executive
agent that will provide administrative and resource funding for the JFHQ? The final
implication is whomever is the executive agent will provide funding for their appropriate
Service personnel and equipment; however, the other Services, such as, the Army, Air
Force, Marine, or Navy Reserve, will have to provide funding to the executive agent for
their appropriate manpower and equipment within the JFHQ.” (Logan, 2004, 3-4)
Another issue Logan addressed was the guidance issued to the states to implement
the JFHQ transformation process. He said, “Although guidance was provided for the
15
joint staff portion of the JFHQ, NGB did not constrain the states to further develop their
headquarters. Each state has its own uniqueness and subsequently there could be 54
different JFHQ constructs. The NGB will have to consolidate these into a common JFHQ
construct and seek guidance from the JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff) and then approval from
OSD (Office of the Secretary of Defense). This will probably take some time, but the
issue is whether OSD will concur with NGB's proposed JFHQ construct. The implication
here is that it could take several iterations between JCS and OSD for final approval of a
JFHQ. Meanwhile, the states are implementing their construct without additional
guidance.” (Logan, 2004, 3-4)
The Department of Defense (DoD) issued their transformation planning guidance
in April 2003. The guidance defined transformation as, “a process that shapes the
changing nature of military competition and cooperation through new combinations of
concepts, capabilities, people and organizations that exploit our nation's advantages and
protect against our asymmetric vulnerabilities to sustain our strategic position, which
helps underpin peace and stability in the world.” (DoD 2003, 3)
The planning guidance identified the scope of the DoD’s transformation and
described the three areas where they would focus their efforts. These areas are:
1) How we fight, which includes a detailed approach to force transformation,
development of future joint warfighting concepts and includes the full range of
supporting military capability areas: doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership
and education, personnel and facilities
2) How we do business inside the DoD. It means pursuing transformational
business and planning practices such as adaptive planning, a more entrepreneurial, future-
16
oriented, capabilities-based resource allocation planning process, accelerated acquisition
cycles built on spiral development, output-based management, and a reformed analytic
support agenda
3) How the DoD works with interagency and multinational partners, which
provides instruction on developing better working relationships with interagency partners
on defense issues and implementing our defense strategy through regional partnerships,
however, more guidance is required with respect to multinational transformation
cooperation (DoD 2003, 6-7).
The National Guard Bureau (NGB) issued several “all states” memorandums that
provided information and guidance to the states regarding implantation of the JFHQ
transformation process. All States Log #P03-0038 is the initial memorandum, issued on
01 July 2003, regarding JFHQ transformation. It states:
“The National Guard must transform in order to remain ready, relevant, and proactive. Transformation within the National Guard will build our warfighting capabilities and enhance what we already have to be able to deal with new threats and emerging realities” (NGB P03-0038, 2003, 1). The memorandum continues by directing portions of the NGB staff to begin
operating immediately as a joint staff. It also directs that the entire NGB staff be
operational as a joint staff by 01 October 2003(NGB P03-0038, 2003, 1).
All States Log #P03-0044, issued on 14 July 2003, is the initial memorandum
directing all states transform to their state headquarters to JFHQ. The memorandum
directs all states to achieve initial operational capability (IOC) as a JFHQ by 01 October
2003.
The memorandum continues by stating: “We will continue the transformation
process for the foreseeable future. The Directors of the Army and Air National Guard
17
and I agree that this is not simply an act changing office symbols. The mid-range goal of
this process is to achieve full operational capability (FOC) of each JFHQ-State within
three years, to include doctrinally sound joint operations performed by the JFHQ-State
based on formerly approved joint manning documents and joint duty positions (NGB
P03-0044, 2003, 2).
The NGB Joint Manpower Implementing Guidance for JFHQ-State provides
interim implementation guidance for the transformation process. The intent of the
guidance is to include interim joint policy guidance, procedures, submission and
reporting requirements for states in developing their respective state Mission,
Organization and Functions (O&F) manual, Joint Table of Distribution (JTD), and Joint
Duty Assignment – Reserve (JDAR) nomination packets. The guidance also states that
the transition to JFHQ will take place using existing resources. The process includes
transitioning positions from the State Area Command (STARC) TDA to the JTD and
states that the actions are normally “zero balance” actions to realign existing positions to
meet the changing mission needs and do not affect the total number of joint manpower
positions (NGB JMIG, 2004, 13-14).
The NGB JFHQ-State Concept and Implementation plan replaced the NGB Joint
Manpower Implementing Guidance for JFHQ-State. The current version, dated 14
February 2006, outlines the background and latest changes to the JFHQ transformation
process. It states:
“This Concept Plan supports a reorganization requirement for the National Guard State Headquarters of the 50 States, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, hereafter referred to as “States and Territories” (NGB C&IP, 2006, 1).
18
Implementation of the Concept Plan is not contingent on receiving resources from the DOD, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the Departments of the Army and Air Force above and beyond those resources already programmed for the Army National Guard (ARNG) and Air National Guard (ANG). There will be no growth of ARNG or ANG manpower. The JFHQ-State will be built using existing requirements from the States’ Table of Distribution and Allowances (TDA) and from the Unit Manning Document (UMD). Any future requirements for other Services staff representation will be submitted in accordance with established JROC (Joint Requirements Oversight Committee) procedures for other Service integrators. Some proposed future requirements are identified in Annex E and will require validation by the Joint Staff and the Services” (NGB C&IP, 2006, 1) The NGB JFHQ-State Concept and Implementation plan also includes the
guidance needed for states to implement transition and complete the JFHQ
transformation process. The final step in the process is the FOC validation. It states that
Full Operational Capability (FOC) will be established over four phases: Implementation
Planning, Transition, Maturation and FOC Validation.
FOC Validation is a formal process, conducted in concert with the NGB at the
request of the Adjutant General of each state. FOC will be validated by each JFHQ-State
through submission of required documentation and demonstration of the ability of the
organization to accomplish their Joint Mission Essential Task List (JMETL) tasks
through exercises or actual events. Target completion date was FY 06 (NGB C&IP,
2006, 13, 14). A briefing from the NGB J-5 provides the criteria and guidelines for FOC
validation (see figure 2) (NGB J-5, 8)
JFHQ-State Full Operational Capability (FOC) Guidelines
• Doctrine - 1. State O&FM approved by TAG and provided to NGB; 2. DOD policy establishes JFHQ-State as a joint activity.
• Organization - 1. JFHQ-State JTD approved by DOD and NGB; 2. Supporting HLD/CS CONPLANs submitted thru NGB to appropriate CoCom. 3. JOC SOP completed.
• Training - 1. JFHQ-State has demonstrated JMETL proficiency in appropriate NGB-approved CoCom joint exercise or real world event.
• Materiel – 1. JFHQ-State has 85% of supporting TDA/ASC-authorized equipment. 2. JFHQ-State has required C4 capabilities for JOC, forward JTF, other key C2 nodes and to support deployed NG forces at an incident site.
• Leadership – 1. TAG routinely employs JFHQ-State Joint Staff as the principal coordinating staff; 2. JPME needs identified and initiated.
• Personnel – 1. Personnel identified for 90% of the authorizations on the JTD; 2. JOC manning planned for 24/7 contingency ops for 30 days
• Facilities - 1. JOC conforms to approved security and infrastructure criteria; 2. JFHQ-State has a functional alternate JOC site and RSOI/BSI facility capable of supporting transient personnel and equipment for 30 days.
As of 25 Jan 06.
Figure 2. JFHQ-State FOC Guidelines Source: National Guard Bureau. J-5, JFHQ-State Briefing to all states, January 2006, slide. 8
There is other information regarding National Guard Joint Force headquarters
transformation found in news articles and press releases. This literature has an effect on
the implementation of the JFHQ transformation process in California by providing
information regarding the direction and intent of LTG Blum’s guidance to the states.
Caruso, Moniz and Maze all discuss legislative changes and provide current
operational information regarding the National Guard Joint Force headquarters
transformation process. Caruso and Moniz also discuss the National Guard
transformation process and provide information directly from the Chief of the National
Guard Bureau, LTG H. Steven Blum. 19
20
Caruso discusses the actual transformation process and structure that LTG Blum
briefed to The Adjutants General (TAGs) in all fifty-four states and territories on May 16,
2003. LTG Blum reorganized the state headquarters by “merging the separate Army, Air,
and state National Guard headquarters from fifty-four states and territories into a single
Joint Force headquarters in each state” (Caruso 2004).
Moniz provided further information on the National Guard Joint Force
headquarters transformation process by discussing changes to the force structure, in
addition to the changes in the state headquarters itself. He reported that one of the most
significant changes is a move to convert 5,000 artillery soldiers into military police to
guard military bases and maintain order in Iraq. (Moniz 2003). He further described the
different status of National Guard troops, saying, “The Guard is a unique state and federal
force whose troops report to the governors in peacetime but can be called up for federal
military duty at home or overseas” (Moniz 2003). This underscores some of the
difficulties experienced by the National Guard when undergoing the process to transform
into a Joint Force headquarters in each state.
Press releases discussed the progress of the transformation efforts in each state
expressed by LTG Blum. They wrote about how LTG Blum was amazed by the progress
of the transformation process. LTG Blum stated, “The National Guard I joined was a
strategic reserve – deliberately under-resourced, deliberately undermanned and
deliberately under-equipped” (Agency Group 09 (1) 2006). He explained that the
transformation process has allowed the National Guard to be better prepared to answer
the nation’s call, when needed. LTG Blum said, “We’re trying to be a ready force, and I
think your Guard today is more ready than it’s ever been” (Agency Group 09 (2) 2006).
21
Joint Planning
There is a significant amount of research data available on the subject of joint
planning. For the purposes of this paper, joint planning is divided into two broad
categories, strategic planning and operational planning. Operational planning is further
divided into two categories, contingency planning and crisis action planning. The
majority of the information regarding joint planning is contained in doctrinal publications
and will be discussed in the next category. The remaining literature discusses the
practical aspects of joint planning and its application in real world scenarios.
Bartholomees put together a comprehensive set of contemporary articles for the
U.S. Army War College (USAWC) for their Guide to National Security Policy and
Strategy. This book is used by the USAWC for their National Security Policy and
Strategy block of instruction. The book divides the articles into five chapters, 1) The
National Security Environment, 2) Strategic Theory and Formulation, 3) Elements of
Power, 4) National Security Policymaking, and 5) Strategic Issues (Bartholomees, 2006,
iv)
Bartholomees article in chapter II discusses the theory of strategy and its
evolution. He explains that the military definition of strategy is derived from military
theorists Carl von Clausewitz, who said that strategy is “the use of engagements for the
object of war”. (Clausewitz, 1993, 146) and Basil Liddell Hart, who defined strategy as
“The art of distributing and applying military means to fulfill the ends of policy”
(Bartholomees, 2006, 81). He also discusses the many variations of the definition being
used by today’s military:
22
“The U.S. military has an approved joint definition of strategy: “The art and science of developing and employing instruments of national power in a synchronized and integrated fashion to achieve theater, national, and/or multinational objectives.” The explanation in the Joint Encyclopedia goes a little further: “These strategies integrate national and military objectives (ends), national policies and military concepts (ways), and national resources and military forces and supplies (means).” That is more satisfactory, although still focused exclusively on national security issues, which is understandable considering the source. However, the joint definition of national military strategy shows that the joint community is divided or at least inconsistent on this subject. “National Military Strategy - The art and science of distributing and applying military power to attain national objectives in peace or war.” is a pure “how to” definition—at best a correlation of objectives with methods with the emphasis on methods. There is no consideration of or recognition of the importance of developing means; there is also no consideration of developing military objectives to accomplish national objectives. The U.S. Army War College defines strategy in two ways: “Conceptually, we define strategy as the relationship among ends, ways, and means.” Alternatively, “Strategic art, broadly defined, is therefore: The skillful formulation, coordination, and application of ends (objectives), ways (courses of action), and means (supporting resources) to promote and defend the national interests.” (Bartholomees, 2006, 84) Meinhart discusses the recent evolution of military strategies and the strategic
planning system. He explains that the four Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff since
1990—Generals Colin Powell (1989-93), John Shalikashvili (1993-97), Henry Shelton
(1997-2001) and Richard Myers (2001-05)—used an unclassified national military
strategy to provide advice on the military’s strategic direction to the President and
Secretary of Defense, and communicated that direction to Congress and the American
people. The Chairman’s responsibilities as the nation’s senior military advisor to provide
this strategic advice, along with many other tasks, are specified in Title 10 U.S. Code.
These increased responsibilities were a result of the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act
(GNA), considered to be the most significant piece of defense legislation since the
National Security Defense Act of 1947 that established the Defense Department
(Meinhart, 2006, 303). He further discusses the strategic planning system and how it
evolved from pre-1990 status to the current status in 2005 (see figure 3) (Meinhart, 2006,
306).
Figure 3. Strategic Planning Process Source: Meinhart, Carlisle Barracks, PA, U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Policy and Strategy, 2006, 303
Meinhart also discusses how the strategic planning process was used to develop
the current National Military Strategy. He concluded the article by saying,
“The National Military Strategy is the keystone document of an overarching strategic planning system that enabled the Chairman as the nation’s senior military advisor to execute his formal leadership responsibilities specified by Congress in Title 10 U.S. Code. Since 1990, each of the four strategies examined identified the broad military ends, ways, and means to meet the nation’s security challenges identified by the President in his National Security Strategy and integrated advice by the Secretary of Defense from other documents.
23
The unclassified nature of the strategy and its signature by the Chairman to integrate this civilian advice was a leadership legacy started by Chairman Powell that continues today. Most importantly, this strategy directly communicates to the American people the need for a military, what that military will do, and how it will do it to provide for our nation’s security” (Meinhart, 2006, 303). Klein discusses the Adaptive Planning (AP) process and its application in Joint
Operations Planning. Adaptive Planning is the joint capability to create and revise plans
rapidly and systematically, as circumstances require (Klein 2007, 84). This planning
model updates and adds flexibility to the outdated German General Staff planning
process. The classic example of this planning model is the Alfred Graf von Schlieffen
plan for the German invasion of France through the Netherlands and Belgium executed in
1914.
The Schlieffen plan (see figure 4) was designed on the concept of rapid
mobilization and took months to put together. The problem with this plan is that it was
not flexible and could not be adapted to a changing situation.
Figure 4. Schlieffen Plan Source: Klein, Robert M. 2007. Adaptive Planning: Not your Great Grandfathers Schlieffen Plan. Joint Force Quarterly, issue 45, 2nd quarter: pg. 85
24
25
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was frustrated by the lack of flexibility in
the Joint Operations Planning Process (JOPP) during the planning prior to Operation Iraqi
Freedom. The JOPP was a formalized process based on the German General Staff
planning model and had many of the same drawbacks. Some of the drawbacks to this
planning model that Secretary Rumsfeld identified during the initial planning for
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) are:
1) It was a single, defensive option.
2) The original assumptions, assessments, and forces were not relevant to the
actual situation.
3) Policy makers wanted multiple options, including an offensive one.
4) The planning process and technology made it difficult to modify the plan and
put it into execution quickly.
5) The plan required extraordinary effort to adapt successfully to the rapidly
changing environment (see figure 5).
Secretary Rumsfeld ordered the initial plan, based on Operation Desert Storm, to be re-
written and demanded alternatives and “out-of-the-box thinking (Klein 2007, 85).
Operation Iraqi Freedom
Figure 5. Adaptive Planning Concept Source: Klein, Robert M. 2007. Adaptive Planning: Not your Great Grandfathers Schlieffen Plan. Joint Force Quarterly, issue 45, 2nd quarter: pg. 86
The result was an update to the JOPP that relied on the Adaptive Planning (AP)
process. This process allowed for contingency planning but provided a streamlined
process for crisis action planning that dramatically reduced the time required, when
necessary, to build and complete a joint operations plan. The resulting plan (see figure 6)
was approved by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on December 13, 2005(Klein
2007, 85).
26
Figure 6. Adaptive Planning Processes Source: Klein, Robert M. 2007. Adaptive Planning: Not your Great Grandfathers Schlieffen Plan. Joint Force Quarterly, issue 45, 2nd quarter: pg. 88
Doctrine
Most descriptions of joint planning and operations focus on outlining
requirements for organizations and guidance for implementation. To answer the
questions outlined in this paper, it is necessary to examine the literature on current
doctrine and previous doctrine, as well as guidance from NGB and DoD dealing with
Joint Force headquarters transformation and implementation.
27
JP 5.0, Joint Operations Planning, provides the basis for operations planning in
the joint environment. It covers all aspects of planning at the strategic and operational
levels. JP 5.0 reflects current doctrine for conducting joint, interagency, and
multinational planning activities across the full range of military operations (JP 5-0 2006,
intro.). It incorporates the Joint Operations Planning Process (JOPP) in the joint planning
arena (See figure 7) and updates the previous doctrine to incorporate the Adaptive
Planning Roadmap signed by the Secretary of Defense on December 13, 2005. The
process allows for joint planning to be conducted as a deliberate process for contingency
planning when there is sufficient time to conduct a thorough planning process, or as an
abbreviated process for crisis action planning when planning is conducted in a time
sensitive environment.
28
Figure 7.Source: Department of Defense. Joint Operation Planning, Joint Publication 5-0, 26 December 2006, pg.
III-20
Joint Operations Planning Process (JOPP)
29
JP 5-0 describes the Joint Operations Planning Process (JOPP) as, “An orderly,
nalytic
a al process that consists of a logical set of steps to analyze a mission; develop,
analyze, and compare alternative courses of action against criteria of success and each
other; select the best course of action; and produce a joint operation plan or order.” (JP 5-
0, 2006, GL-15). It also outlines the process for the conduct of joint planning and
identifies the planning products that should be produced by the JOPP (See figure 8).
Figure 8. Joint Operations Planning Products Source: Department of Defense. Joint Operation Planning, Joint Publication 5-0, 26 December 2006, pg. I
24 -
30
risis action planning is a form of joint planning that allows for planners to
produc e
s (JP 5-0,
C
e results much quicker than when using the contingency planning process. Th
process also allows for planning to be conducted during the execution phase of
operations. Planning generally occurs in three distinct but overlapping sequence
III-58), current operations planning, near term planning, and future operations planning.
(See figure 9).
Figure 9. Planning During Execution Source: Department of Defense. Joint Operation Planning, Joint Publication 5-0, 26 December 2006, pg.
III-58
31
JP 3-0, Joint Operations, provides the framework for operating in a joint
environ ctions,
Volum
ow a
California Specific Documents
ment. It discusses the strategic context, joint operations fundamentals, fun
plans and assessment, crisis response, contingency operations and considerations for all
levels of joint operations. JP 3.0 reflects the current guidance for conducting joint and
multinational activities across the full range of military operations (JP 3-0, 2006 intro.).
CJCSM 3122.03B, Joint Operation Planning and Execution System (JOPES)
e II Planning Formats (hereafter referred to as JOPES) provides the actual
framework and basis for Joint Operations Plans. JOPES lays out the specifics on h
joint operations plan is supposed to be structured, as well as the specific information that
is to be included in joint plans. It discusses administrative guidance, commander’s
estimate, plan front matter2, basic plan and appendixes, annexes, tabs and exhibits
(CJCSM, 2006, vii).
The literature in this s are currently in use by the
JFHQ i
California National Guard, Joint Force headquarters,
Organi
ection identifies documents that
n California. They include standing operating procedures (SOP), California
specific manuals and guidelines.
CA-JFHQM 5000-1 is the
zations and Functions Manual. This manual is applicable to all elements of the
California Military Department and the JFHQ. It describes the organization and
functions of the Joint Force headquarters (JFHQ) in California.
2 Plan front matter consists of those things contained in the front of a joint plan. They include the cover page, approval memorandum, letter of transmittal and security instructions and record of changes. (CJCSM 3122.03B, vii)
The JFHQ functions in a unique role, as both a federal entity, and a state agency, with distinct requirements, responsibilities, resources, and functions that must be integrated into a single operational entity equally responsive to both the state and federal missions. This manual reflects the first integrated organization and function document to address both the state and federal missions since the federally directed re-organization from State Area Command (STARC) to Joint Force headquarters-State (JFHQ) (CA-JFHQM 5000-1, 2). The manual describes the six major functions within the California Military
Department (CMD) and its mission. It also recognizes that there are overlapping mission
sets and mission requirements between Homeland Defense (federal mission), Homeland
Security (federal or state mission), Emergency Preparedness (state mission), and Civil
Security (state mission) (See figure 10) (CA-JFHQM 5000-1, 8)
Overlapping Mission Requirements
HHoommeellaanndd SSeeccuurriittyy:: (Primarily the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security Draft JP 3-26))
DOD Mission Sets: HHoommeellaanndd DDeeffeennssee:: Protection of the U.S. territory, sovereignty, domestic population, and defense of critical infrastructure against external threats and aggression. Homeland Defense: National Air & Space Defense National Land Defense National Maritime Defense CCiivviill SSuuppppoorrtt ((SSttaattee MMiissssiioonn)):: Military Assistance to Civil Authorities Military Support to Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Military Assistance for Civil Disturbances EEmmeerrggeennccyy PPrreeppaarreeddnneessss ((SSttaattee MMiissssiioonn)):: Continuity of Operations Continuity of Government Other EP as directed
Homeland Defense
(Federal Mission)
Civil
Support (State
Missions)
Overlapping Mission Sets
Homeland Security (Federal
or State
Mission)
Emergency Preparedness
(State Missions)
Figure 10. Overlapping Mission Requirements Source: California Military Department, Joint Force headquarters, Organizations and Functions Manual,
CA-JFHQM 5000-1, June 2007, pg 11
32
33
The manual also describes the organization and functions for each staff within the
JFHQ; primary, special and personal staffs, service component (Army and Air) staffs and
the State Military Reserve (SMR) staff. Each staff area contains, at a minimum, the
mission and essential tasks for that staff. Larger staffs also contain an organization chart
and breakdown, by organizational structure, the mission and essential tasks within that
organization that support the larger, overall staff section mission and the mission
supporting the joint mission essential task list (JMETL) (CA-JFHQM 5000-1, 9-10).
The CMD strategic plan is the primary document used to plan the future of the
California Military Department. This document recognizes the need for the CMD to plan
ahead, as a department and not as just Service Components with the state headquarters.
The Department is undergoing dramatic change in mission, function, and organization to better respond to the needs of the State of California and the nation. This transformation is impacting all elements of the Department, and is reflected in the form and scope of the current Strategic Plan. The extent of transformation, initiated by both federal and state requirements limited the scope of this plan to completing transformation actions and preparing for new directions at the completion of transition. Future updates to this plan will generate a longer range focus. The Headquarters of the California National Guard and the Military Department of California, following several years of exploring alternative organizational structures and alignments, is now actively transforming to a Joint Force headquarters under a doctrinally accurate organizational structure, that once complete, will afford the State a much greater level of support response from not only the California Military Department and California National Guard, but will deepen the capabilities pool to include Department of Defense assets previously not available to the State. The California Army National Guard is transforming from a strategic reserve force to an operational force, with modular capabilities better suited to meet the federal needs of the United States Army, the needs of the State of California, and to be prepared to operate in a joint environment (CMD, 2007, 3). The CMD strategic plan describes the vision (see figure 11), mission (see figure
12), and core competencies (see figure 13) that must be sustained for the CMD to be
effective as a military organization.
Figure 11. California Military Department Vision
Source: California Military Department, California National Guard Strategic Plan, May 2006, pg 7
Figure 12. California Military Department Mission
Source: California Military Department, California National Guard Strategic Plan, May 2006, pg 8
34
Figure 13. California Military Department Core Competencies
Source: California Military Department, California National Guard Strategic Plan, May 2006, pg 10
The plan also contains organizational priority issues, organizational goals, and
operational goals for the Joint Force headquarters, each of the Service Components
(Army and Air), and the State Military Reserve. These goals are reviewed annually to
ensure the CMD is on track with its strategic plan and allow them to make adjustments to
ensure future goals continue to be met.
California has recently fielded a Joint Planning Group (JPG) Standing operating
Procedures SOP manual to the JFHQ staff. The SOP is being exercised to validate the
procedures contained in the manual and will be finalized later this year.
The SOP describes the organization and procedures used by the California
Military Department for accomplishing “future planning”. Future operational planning
35
36
will be accomplished by the joint planning group (JPG). The JPG is composed of
representatives from all staff sections and components that may be involved in
conducting or supporting the mission for which the plan is being developed.
“Future planning” refers to a deliberate process used for planning potential or expected mission requirements in advance of the need to implement the plan. Future planning may include planning for contingencies that can be reasonably expected (such as responding to a future earthquake in California) or may include planning for the follow-on phase of an ongoing operation (such as the ordered demobilization from a major operation in preparation for an anticipated change in mission) Contingency planning will be conducted using the joint operations planning process (JOPP) and joint operations planning and execution system (JOPES) and all plans developed will comply with the standard joint format. The uses of JOPES provides continuity of plans and ensures all stakeholders, regardless of component are able to quickly and accurately convert the plan to an operations order capable of being implemented with a minimum of delay and confusion (CMD JPG SOP, 2007, 1).
The SOP also provides the organization and composition of the Joint Planning
Group (JPG). The group is divided into a core planning element and a support element
with the appropriate staff representation to prepare a comprehensive plan (see figure 14).
The core element is always formed, and the support element will be formed as needed,
according to the situation.
Figure 14. CMD Joint Planning Group Composition
Source: California Military Department, Joint Force headquarters Joint Planning SOP, June 2007, pg 5
The SOP also contains a JPG action checklist (see figure 15). The checklist is
divided into 3 parts and can be used by anyone on the JPG. Each part identifies specific
items that can be delegated to members of the JPG and tracked to ensure all steps are
completed.
37
Figure 15. CMD Joint Planning Group Action Checklist
Source: California Military Department, Joint Force headquarters Joint Planning SOP, June 2007, pg 8
38
39
California has also fielded a draft operational planning group (OPG) SOP for
personnel working in the J-3 and assigned to the Joint Operations Center (JOC) during
emergency operations. The OPG SOP focus of effort is conducting Crisis Action
Planning (CAP), mission analysis and planning near-term future operations. JFHQ
J3/Future Operations Division (J35) represents J3 in the operational planning process to
ensure continuity between the COG and JPG regarding plans and orders, commander’s
intent, approved end states and operational objectives. During a contingency, the OPG
plans operations within the current phase and accomplishes the refined coordination of
plans developed by the JPG. The plans are based on updated situation awareness and
ongoing refinements required to synchronize the pending operations (see figure 16).
Responsibilities include:
other staffs and commands as necessary for a complete review of a otential crisis
nts providing decision makers ith the information required to make informed decisions
odify plans developed by the JPG based upon the current situation
oy
ion Support Matrix, execution timeline and point of contract OC) coordination list
for
and development of current and anticipated perations to achieve the intended end state
close coordination with the JPG for lanning and execution (CMD OPG SOP, 2007, 2).
Coordinate withp Produce messages, reports, orders, briefs and other documew M Develop modified plans into orders, (Warning Order [WARNORD], Prepare To DeplOrder [PTDO], OPORD or EXORD) and pass to the COG for execution, along with situational CCIRs, Decis(P Develop and assess the current operation and project future status of friendly forcesthe next 96 hours. These projections, in conjunction with C2 projections for threat actions, determine the need for modification o Task organize staff members to manage or execute up to three multiple or simultaneous events. More than three simultaneous events require p
Figure 16. OPG Plans and Operations Synchronization Source: California Military Department, JFHQ Operations Planning SOP, June 2007, pg 3
This SOP is currently being exercised by JFHQ personnel to validate the document.
Working Issues
There is additional research data available on working issues that need to be
addressed to answer some of the secondary questions outlined in chapter 1. The
information regarding these working issues cover areas such as resourcing issues,
monetary considerations, state emergency response requirements and effects of
mobilizations on the transformation process. Although each topic area is significant,
40
41
there is not enough literature in each of these areas to warrant creating a separate
category for each topic.
The Government Accounting Office (GAO) has published several reports
regarding various aspects of the National Guard transformation process. The GAO
published two reports in June 2007. The first report, presented in testimony before the
Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, discusses the fiscal, security and
human impact of developing a revised business model for the Reserve Component. The
GAO reported that the Department of Defense’s (DoD) “reliance on the Reserve
Components in recent years to support military operations and homeland security needs
has highlighted the need to better align the reserves’ business model with their 21st
century roles” (GAO (1) 2007, 3).
The second report, delivered to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, US Senate, discusses the Emergency Management Assistance
Compact (EMAC) and how enhancing EMAC’s collaborative and administrative
capacity should improve national disaster response. The significance of this report is that
it streamlines the process to expedite the delivery of resources for disaster response and
specifically, National Guard support. The effect of EMAC on the Joint Planning process
at the state level is that it allows the National Guard in each state to look at the available
resources of other states that participate in EMAC when planning for state emergencies
that may overwhelm existing resources in that state (GAO (2) 2007, 4).
Summary of the Literature
The available literature in the areas of Transformation, Leadership, Doctrine,
California Specific Documents and Working Issues provide the background information
42
needed for this research. Each category provided sufficient information to give the reader
a solid foundation about the issues related to the Joint Force Headquarters transformation
process.
Transformation provides information about the process and guidance issued. It
includes detailed information regarding specific guidance that was issued from the DoD
and NGB to California on the process of transformation, the expected timelines, resource
issues and milestones for completion of the process.
Joint Planning provides information and background data regarding the process
used by joint planners and the differences planners experience when transitioning from a
service-centric planning system to a joint planning system. The majority of the literature
about joint planning is contained in doctrinal publications and will be discussed in the
next category. The remaining literature discusses the practical aspects of joint planning
and its application in real world scenarios.
Doctrine covers the institutional guidelines and focuses on outlining requirements
for organizations and guidance for implementation. It covers literature on current
doctrine and previous doctrine, as well as guidance from NGB, DoD and DA specific to
Joint Force Headquarters transformation and implementation that is necessary to answer
the questions outlined in this paper.
JP 5-0 serves as the base document and guidance for joint planning. This
publication covers the deliberate process of the Joint Operations Planning Process
(JOPP), as well as the abbreviated crisis action planning process used in a time
constrained environment.
California Specific documents cover the literature created and used by California
43
to execute the Joint Force headquarters transformation in that state. It also covers the
documents California has created to provide guidance in the conduct of contingency
planning, crisis action planning and strategic planning.
Working issues covered the remaining areas of consideration about the Joint
Force Headquarters transformation process. This area contains significant information
about specific topics that did not have enough literature to create a separate category.
Need to summarize the rest of the literature.
44
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter looks at the four major areas of information gathered while
collecting research for this topic. All documents that were collected and reviewed are
available in open source. It also contains a description of the items and areas to be
analyzed. It identifies and develops the procedures that were used for the analysis in the
next chapter. It also addresses the possible objections to the validity of the analysis
process.
Interviews comprised a large portion of the qualitative data collected. These
interviews were critical to the success of this paper as they filled in the gaps created by
doctrine and guidance, and provided insight into how doctrinal procedures were
implemented. The interviews were conducted telephonically and in person.
Description of Items to Be Analyzed
The research plan for this thesis was to do a qualitative analysis of the Joint Force
headquarters transformation process and the effect that leaders have in implementing the
process. This paper studied the directions and implementation instructions disseminated
by DoD and NGB and given to the states to begin the process of transformation and the
guidance given to the planning staffs in particular. It examines existing doctrine
regarding Joint Force headquarters in the National Guard and the changes from previous
doctrine.
This paper looked at the joint planning process itself, researching existing
doctrine and implementation practices. It reviews what training is available for joint
45
planners and what training is required for qualification as a joint planner. It also looks at
the changes required to convert existing service specific plans to doctrinally correct joint
plans and the magnitude of work required to complete the process.
Interviews
Part of the research plan was to conduct interviews with leaders and planners in
key positions within the National Guard Bureau (NGB) and the Joint Force headquarters
in California during the transformation process. As the research began to unfold, it
became clear that interviews with leaders and planners at the National Guard Bureau
would be unnecessary. All information that had been disseminated to the states was
available through open source documents, eliminating the need for interviews with
personnel within the National Guard Bureau.
I conducted nine interviews were conducted with JFHQ senior leaders, joint staff
directors, joint planners within the various directorates, planners and force providers
between the ranks of O-4 (Major) to O-7 (Brigadier General) within the Army and Air
Guard directorates, and planning facilitators within the J-5. The initial plan included five
interviews but the conduct of initial interviews revealed the need to expand the process to
include leaders and planners within each of the specific services (Army and Air Force), in
addition to the intended interviews of leaders and planners assigned to the Joint Staff.
These interviews identified common challenges and successes in both the
transformation process, and joint planning issues. They also helped identify potential
challenges that still need to be overcome to complete the transformation process and the
conversion of remaining service specific plans to doctrinally correct joint plans.
46
Interviews with key personnel assigned to the G-3 Plans and A-3 Plans sections at
the state headquarters in California. These personnel were JFHQ senior leaders, joint
staff directors, joint planners within the various directorates, planners and force providers
within the Army and Air Guard directorates, and planning facilitators within the J-5 who
provided the answer to how they conducted planning prior to the JFHQ transformation.
The interviews provided information on the practical application of the service specific
doctrine and how each service contributed to the state plans.
I conducted interviews with key members of the joint staff in California to find
out what checks are conducted to ensure that joint planning is conducted in a doctrinally
correct format and the practical application of how those checks are handled and tracked.
Interviews with key personnel in the J-5 Strategic Plans and Policies Section at
the Joint Force headquarters in California answered the question of how training is
documented and determine what impact it has on existing plans. Researching doctrine
and reporting requirements completed the answer to this question.
Converting existing service specific plans into doctrinally correct joint plans is a
time consuming and laborious project. Interviews with key personnel in the J-3
Operations Sections and J-5 Strategic Plans and Policies Sections at the Joint Force
headquarters in California helped to determine what training had been conducted to
convert existing plans to the joint planning format.
Research
Current doctrine and existing guidance and directions issued from the Department
of Defense (DoD), The Joint Staff, and the NGB to the states were examined to answer
the question of how joint planning is conducted. Current doctrine provides the primary
47
resource to answer this question but state specific guidance and organizational structure
must also be considered to provide practical solutions to the implementation of current
doctrine.
Research of current doctrine, joint publications and specific guidance issued by
DoD, The Joint Staff and NGB helped determine what checks are conducted to ensure
that joint planning is conducted in a doctrinally correct format. Researching existing
doctrine provided the information to answer what the resource material documents are.
Research on what training is available for joint planners and what training is
required for qualification as a joint planner was needed to answer the question of how the
training of joint planners is conducted.
Doctrine identified the training requirements but didn’t necessarily answer the
question of what the current training plan is. Interviews with key personnel in the J-5
Strategic Plans and Policies Section and J-7 Training at the Joint Force headquarters in
California provided the answer to this question.
Methods of Analysis
The two most common methods of analysis are the qualitative and quantitative.
Quantitative analysis provides information by using statistical data and numerical
analysis to produce charts and graphs that show trends and predict outcomes based on
that data. Qualitative analysis seeks to discover patterns such as changes over time or
possible causal links between variables. The quantitative method will be used when
employing tables and other numeric data.
Qualitative analysis shows depth of analysis by asking questions regarding
specific information. It is the process of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data by
48
observing what people do and say. It analyzes and gives insight to the meanings,
concepts, definitions, characteristics, metaphors, symbols, and descriptions of things.
Qualitative research consists mainly of individual, in-depth interviews and focus
groups. The nature of this type of research is exploratory and open-ended where small
numbers of people are interviewed in-depth and the data analyzed based on relevancy of
its content, not the quantity of its content.
Analysis of the information collected helped identify key implications related to
the primary question of, “What are the most significant challenges to the implementation
of a doctrinally correct joint planning process when transforming from a state military
headquarters to a Joint Force headquarters in California?”. The most important part of
the analysis process was the qualitative analysis of the interviews that were conducted
during the research for this paper. This information provided the answers to the
secondary questions and provided the basis to answer the primary thesis question.
A side-by-side comparison was used to compare the current organizational model
of the California National Guard and the organizational model that was in place prior to
the Joint Force headquarters transformation. This comparison shows the functions that
were shared in common between the current and old organizational structure and
contrasted the differences between the two models.
An examination of the guidance issued by the NGB to the states and the
associated source documents will show how they either support or do not support the
California’s transformation to JFHQ.
49
Conclusions
Research will conclude in chapter 5 with an assessment and review of the
information collected; its relevance, and recommendations for future research and
actions. These conclusions and recommendations may assist leaders in other
organizations undergoing the process of transformation in their state. The results of this
research will be presented to the planning sections in the J-3 and J-5 at the National
Guard Bureau headquarters to assist them in addressing issues related to joint planning
and the Joint Force headquarters transformation process.
Threats to the Objectivity of the Research Challenged
Much of the research regarding guidance from NGB and DoD is contained in
press releases and news articles. Press releases and news articles have the potential to be
biased. No matter how fair or impartial an author attempts to be, everyone has some sort
of bias that may be reflected in the written work.
Press releases and news articles can be biased in depth and breadth and based on
either omitted information or incomplete information. This information can be used to
promote a policy or point of view. The potential for bias must be taken into account when
reviewing any source and make judgments as to the worth or value of the gathered
information. Every effort has been made to verify information in press releases and news
articles through either independent corroboration or through reference to multiple sources
to minimize the potential for bias in this thesis.
50
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS
This chapter analyzes the guidance, as well as the issues, pertaining to joint
planning that surfaced as a result of the guidance that was issued while transforming from
a state military headquarters to a Joint Force headquarters. Although the transformation
to JFHQ is not yet complete, there is sufficient data available to analyze and identify the
issues and challenges experienced during the process. There is also sufficient data
available to identify and capture successes that were achieved during the process.
Military Decision Making Process
To understand the significance and impact the JFHQ transformation process has
had on operational planning, a comparison of the old and new planning formats is
necessary. Although they both appear to be similar in format and content, they are
significantly different.
The Army planning process (called MDMP) is described in detail in FM 5-0.
Because the CMD state headquarters was, primarily, an Army state headquarters, the
MDMP was the primary tool for planners in that organization. FM 5-0 describes the
MDMP process:
The military decision making process is a planning model that establishes procedures for analyzing a mission, developing, analyzing, and comparing courses of action against criteria of success and each other, selecting the optimum course of action, and producing a plan or order. The MDMP applies across the spectrum of conflict and range of military operations. Commanders with an assigned staff use the MDMP to organize their planning activities, share a common understanding of the mission and commander’s intent, and develop effective plans and orders (FM 5-0, 2005, 3-1). There are seven steps listed in the MDMP (see figure 16). They are: 1) receipt of
the mission, 2) mission analysis, 3) course of action development, 4) course of action
analysis, 5) course of action comparison, 6) course of action approval, and 7) orders
production (see figure 17) (FM 5-0, 2005, 3-11). The formal process always begins with
step 1, receipt of the mission and moves through the subsequent steps until the process is
complete.
Figure 17. Figure 9, Steps of the MDMP process
Source: Department of the Army, Army Planning and Orders Production, FM 5-0, January 2005, pg 3-11 Each step begins with inputs that build on previous steps. The outputs of each step
drive subsequent steps. Errors committed in earlier steps will affect the outputs of later
steps. Although the steps are listed in sequence, they do not necessarily stop when the
next step starts. Some steps, mission analysis for instance, occur throughout the entire
51
52
process. It is convenient to describe the MDMP in terms of steps; nonetheless, planners
compare the process to current requirements, set priorities, and perform the necessary
tasks in an order that produces the required product on time (FM 5-0, 2005, 3-11).
Each staff member has specific tasks that need to be accomplished for the MDMP
to move forward. These tasks ensure that planners have the most current information and
provide the rest of the staff with critical information on which to base their decisions.
The staff performs the following critical tasks during planning:
• Develop and maintain staff estimates.
• Identify specified and implied tasks.
• Identify constraints.
• Identify key facts and assumptions.
• Perform intelligence preparation of the battlefield (IPB).
• Formulate the concepts of operations and support in line with the commander’s
intent.
• Develop the scheme of maneuver to support the COA.
• Prepare, authenticate, and distribute their portion of the plan or order, annexes,
estimates, appendixes, and supporting plans (FM 5-0, 2005, 3-9).
The performance of these tasks throughout the MDMP steps ensure that the staff
considers all aspects of the military mission and provides the best possible solution based
on the information provided. They also provide the basis for the orders production
process, the last step in the MDMP.
Orders production consists of those actions taken by the staff to produce a
complete operations order. There are many types of orders that can be produced through
the MDMP; operation orders (OPORD), service support orders, movement orders,
53
warning orders and fragmentary orders. For the purposes of this paper, we will
concentrate on the operation order.
FM 5-0 states that an operation order is a directive issued by a commander to
subordinate commanders for the purpose of effecting the coordinated execution of an
operation (JP 1-02). Traditionally called the five paragraph field order, an OPORD
contains the following:
• Task organization.
• Situation.
• Mission.
• Execution.
• Administrative and logistic support.
• Command and signal for the specified operation (FM 5-0, 2005, G-5).
The OPORD follows a specific format (see figures 18 and 19) to ensure the same
information can be found in the same location on any operations order. Annexes to the
OPORD also follow a specific format for the same reason (see figure 20).
Figure 18. OPORD format (page 1)
Source: Department of the Army, Army Planning and Orders Production, FM 5-0, January 2005, pg G-18 – G-19
54
Figure 19. OPORD format (page 2)
Source: Department of the Army, Army Planning and Orders Production, FM 5-0, January 2005, pg G-18 – G-19
55
Figure 20. OPORD Annexes
Source: Department of the Army, Army Planning and Orders Production, FM 5-0, January 2005, pg G-20
56
57
The full MDMP provides the foundation on which planning in a time constrained
environment is based. Before a unit can effectively conduct planning in a time-
constrained environment, it must master the steps in the full MDMP. A unit can only
shorten the process if it fully understands the role of each and every step of the process
and the requirement to produce the necessary products. The advantages of using the full
MDMP are—
It analyzes and compares multiple friendly and enemy COAs to identify the best possible friendly COA.
• It produces the greatest coordination and synchronization in plans and orders.
• It minimizes the chance of overlooking critical aspects of the operation.
• It helps identify contingencies for branch and sequel development.
• The disadvantage of using the full MDMP is that it is time-consuming. The longer
the higher headquarters spends planning, the less time for subordinates to plan,
prepare, and execute operations (FM 5-0, 2005, 3-3, 3-4).
The abbreviated MDMP is a process that has been discussed as a method used for
planning by several of the interviewees. This method is covered in FM 5-0 this way:
The steps of an abbreviated MDMP are the same as those for the full process;
however, the commander performs many of them mentally or with less staff involvement.
The products developed during an abbreviated MDMP may be the same as those
developed for the full process; however, they are usually less detailed. Some may be
omitted altogether. Unit SOPs state how to abbreviate the MDMP based on the
commander’s preferences.
The advantages of abbreviating the MDMP are—
• It maximizes the use of available time.
• It allows subordinates more planning time.
58
• It focuses staff efforts on the commander’s guidance.
• It facilitates adapting to a rapidly changing situation.
• It allows for the commander’s experience to compensate for an inexperienced
staff.
The disadvantages of abbreviating the MDMP are—
• It is much more directive and limits staff flexibility and initiative.
• It does not explore all available options when developing friendly COAs.
• It increases the risk of overlooking a key factor or not uncovering a significantly
better option.
• It may decrease coordination and synchronization of the plan. (FM 5-0, 2005, 3-
59).
The abbreviated MDMP is a powerful tool that, used correctly, would greatly
reduce the planning time required to produce OPORDs and plans in a time constrained
environment. It is not, however, the method of choice when trying to produce complete,
detailed OPLANs3.
Joint Operation Planning Process
The transition to JFHQ created the necessity for planners to transition from the
Army-centric MDMP, to the JOPP to produce joint plans for the organization. The JPG 3 OPORD is an operation order. A directive issued by a commander to subordinate commanders for the purpose of effecting the coordinated execution of an operation. OPLAN is an operation plan. 1. Any plan for the conduct of military operations prepared in response to actual and potential contingencies. 2. In the context of joint operation planning level 4 planning detail, a complete and detailed joint plan containing a full description of the concept of operations, all annexes applicable to the plan, and a time-phased force and deployment data. It identifies the specific forces, functional support, and resources required to execute the plan and provide closure estimates for their flow into the theater. (This term and its definition modify the existing term and its definition and are approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.) (JP 5-0, 2006, GL-20)
process was incorporated as the best way to incorporate the JOPP at the JFHQ in
California.
The joint operations planning process (called JOPP) is described in detail in JP 5-
0. JP 5-0 describes the term, joint operation planning, as planning activities associated
with the preparation of joint operation plans and operation orders for the conduct of
military operations by joint force commanders (JP 5-0, 2006, 1-11).
As described earlier, JOPP is an adaptive process that allows clear strategic
guidance and frequent interaction between senior leaders and planners. The process
helps to promote early understanding of, and agreement on, planning assumptions,
considerations, risks, and other key factors. The focus is on developing plans that contain
a variety of viable, embedded options and, on the interaction between an organization’s
commander, staff, the commanders and staffs of the next higher and lower commands,
and supporting commanders and their staffs (JP 5-0, 2006, 1-11).
The JOPP, like the MDMP, contains seven steps and uses almost the same titles
for each step. (See figure 21). The difference is not in the number of steps or the names
of those steps, it is in the way the process is executed.
Figure 21. MDMP vs. JOPP Comparison
59
60
The first step in the JOPP is initiation of the process itself. The CMD does not
normally receive a mission prior to the conduct of JOPP. The process is usually initiated
prior to a request for assistance from the Office of Emergency Services (OES), based on
an anticipated need, or the likelihood there will be a need for the plan at a later time.
When the JOPP is initiated, the commander, in this case the commander of joint
staff CMD, orders the formation of a joint planning group (JPG) to conduct the planning
and prepare a plan. JP 5-00.2 describes the formation and composition of a JPG.
Composition of the JPG may vary depending on the planning activities being conducted. There are no “hard and fast” rules on how to determine the precise number of personnel required to staff the JPG. A task specific organization may work best. Figure 22 depicts one approach to JPG organization. Representation to the JPG should be a long-term assignment to provide continuity of focus and consistency of procedure. These representatives should be authorized spokespersons for their sections, components, or organizations. Often, representatives from the supported combatant command will augment the JPG. The heart of the JPG is the planning cell (see figure 20). This cell is a core of 10-12 personnel who are familiar with the CAP process and JOPES products. A small group of core planners is recommended, since large groups tend to become less focused and unmanageable. A focused effort is critical during the initial phases of CAP.(JP 5-00.2, 1999, IX-7)
Figure 22. Joint Planning group Composition
Source: Department of Defense, Joint Task Force Planning Guidance and Procedures, Joint Publication 5-00.2, 13 January 1999, pg IX-6
The next step in the JOPP, after the formation of the JPG is to conduct a mission
analysis. The mission analysis, although similar to MDMP is different in that there are
many other factors that have to be considered in the JOPP (see figure 23). These factors
and considerations, such as 1) determine own military end state, objectives, and initial
effects, 2) determine own & enemy’s center(s) of gravity and critical factors, 3) review
61
strategic communication guidance (when applicable), and 4) Conduct initial force
structure analysis are not normally a part of the MDMP process and there is no crossover.
This is another area where OJT will not be able to provide sufficient expertise for persons
not trained on the JOPP to get that expertise. Joint staff planners who rely on their
MDMP background to accomplish the JOPP will, likely, miss a significant portion of the
mission analysis process.
1. Determine Known Facts and Current Status.
2. Analyze Combatant Commander’s Mission and Intent.
3. Determine own specified, implied, and essential tasks.
4. Determine operational limitations.5. Develop Assumptions.6. Determine own military End State,
objectives and initial effects.7. Determine own and Enemy Centers of
Gravity and critical factors.8. Determine initial commander’s critical
information requirements.9. Conduct Initial Force Structure Analysis.10. Conduct Risk Assessment.11. Develop Mission Statement. 12. Prepare Mission Analysis Brief.13. Prepare initial staff estimates.14. Publish commander’s planning guidance
and initial intent.
1. Determine Known Facts and Current Status.
2. Analyze Combatant Commander’s Mission and Intent.
3. Determine own specified, implied, and essential tasks.
4. Determine operational limitations.5. Develop Assumptions.6. Determine own military End State,
objectives and initial effects.7. Determine own and Enemy Centers of
Gravity and critical factors.8. Determine initial commander’s critical
information requirements.9. Conduct Initial Force Structure Analysis.10. Conduct Risk Assessment.11. Develop Mission Statement. 12. Prepare Mission Analysis Brief.13. Prepare initial staff estimates.14. Publish commander’s planning guidance
and initial intent.
Joint Pub 5-00.2, Joint Task Force Planning Guidance And Procedures.
Mission Analysis - Joint vs. ArmyJoint Army
FM 5.0 Army Planning And Orders Production.
Figure 23.
62
Mission Analysis – Joint vs. Army Comparison
When a request is received from OES and there is not a plan already developed,
the commander of the joint staff will convene a JPG to conduct crisis action planning
(CAP). CAP is similar to the abbreviated MDMP. The steps are abbreviated and the
process is accelerated (see figure 24). The CAP process, also like the abbreviated
MDMP, requires more direct involvement from the commander and relies on JPG
members to be fully trained on JOPP for contingency planning.
Figure 24. Crisis Action Planning Process
Source: Department of Defense, Joint Task Force Planning Guidance and Procedures, Joint Publication 5-00.2, 13 January 1999, pg IX-15
California Military Department Organizational Structure
To understand the significance of the changes to joint planning as a result of the
JFHQ transformation process, it is necessary to discuss how the organizational structure
of the California Military Department (CMD) has changed. These changes directly
affected the CMD’s planning capability and provided direction for their future
capabilities.
The CMD began changing its organizational structure in May 2003. This change
was in response to the directive issued by the Chief National Guard Bureau, LTG F.
Steven Blum. The CMD consisted of the Adjutant General (TAG), his personal and
special staffs, and representatives from the Army Guard, Air Guard, state militia, and two 63
support divisions (see figure 25). The civil support division handled all of the operational
requirements for the CMD and the resource services division handled all of the remaining
functions, personnel, facilities, and fiscal support.
Figure 25. California Military Department Organizational Structure (pre-2003)
Source: Krauss, W. Fritz, J-5, California National Guard, 2008
The TAGs personal and specials staffs were usually provided by the service that
the TAG belonged to when he was appointed. An Army Guard TAG primarily had an
Army Guard personal and special staffs while an Air Guard TAG relied primarily on Air
Guard personal and special staffs.
The changes brought about by the JFHQ transformation to the organizational
structure in California were profound. The transformation process dissolved the civil
64
service division and resources service divisions. It created a true joint staff, consisting of
members from both the Army and Air Guard components. It created the positions of
Director and Chief of Staff (CoS) for the joint staff, and moved the state militia and
special staff functions under the control of the joint staff (see figure 26).
Figure 26. Current California Military Department Organizational Structure
Source: Krauss, W. Fritz, J-5, California National Guard, 2008
The creation of the joint staff represented a significant shift in the capabilities of
the CMD headquarters staff. Coordination between the staff and Service Components
improved due to the constant interaction within the various staff sections.
65
66
The joint staff now has the ability to task the Service Components to provide
resources to support state missions. That tasking authority created the requirement for
the staff to conduct joint planning to support those missions. The capabilities of the joint
staff increased but so did the requirements that were placed on them.
The J-5 began to take on responsibilities to assist the planning efforts of other
state agencies. This increase in planning support requirements, along with the existing
requirements to convert existing plans to the joint format, requires a more robust planning
capability in the J-5 shop than currently exists.
The Interview Process
The next section discusses and analyzes the interviews that were collected during
the research for this paper. The interviews consisted of ten open ended questions. These
questions were designed and worded to draw out candid comments from the interviewees
and encourage further discussion.
The first two questions are intended to show the wide range of positions and
experience that information was gathered from. They were also asked to ensure there
were no information gaps in the remaining questions and that the subject interviewed has
ample knowledge of his/her position and the impact on joint planning during the JFHQ
transformation process.
Question #1
What is/was your position in the Joint Force headquarters during the transformation? Nine of nine persons interviewed responded to this question. This question
showed the wide range of positions covered by the interview process. Interviews were
67
conducted with JFHQ senior leaders, joint staff directors, joint planners within the
various directorates, planners and force providers between the ranks of O-4 (Major) to O-
7 (Brigadier General) within the Army and Air Guard directorates, and planning
facilitators within the J-5. Their answers confirmed that the executors of the planning
process and the force providers for that process were queried. Their answers also showed
that the persons interviewed were in a position to provide firsthand knowledge of the
changes and impact the JFHQ transformation process had on joint planning.
Question #2
How long have you been assigned to that position within the Joint Force headquarters?
Nine of nine persons interviewed responded to this question. This question
determined that all nine had been assigned to their current position for at least three years.
Eight of nine had been assigned to either their current position or another senior leader
position since the JFHQ transformation in 2003. Their answers showed that the persons
interviewed had all been involved in the execution of the JFHQ transformation process
and had been in their positions long enough to see how the process impacted joint
planning.
Question #3
From your perspective as a senior staff officer, how is planning accomplished in the JFHQ? Nine of nine persons interviewed responded to this question. Five of the nine
persons interviewed answered this question by first explaining how contingency planning
68
was conducted prior to the JFHQ transformation process. They described the process and
level of participation that was given to the planners responsible for writing the plan.
Interviewee #1 said, “Before transformation, the responsibility for contingency
planning rested on the office or directorate that was responsible for overall operations of
the military department. All plans were written within that department with little or no
input from the rest of the departments within the headquarters. Similar to how you would
expect to see a plan developed at the battalion level. The S-3 would direct what they are
going to do and the rest of the departments would follow. The operations section for the
state headquarters would write the plans and hand them over to the rest of the
departments and say, ‘Here is your plan, now go forth and implement.’ We looked at how
we were operating and realized that we needed to be more closely aligned doctrinally to
how planning should be occurring.”
This view is consistent with the information provided by Interviewees #4, 7, 8 and
9 who said that contingency planning was conducted by the civil service division prior to
the JFHQ transformation. Interviewee #4 said, “The requirements were handed out to the
various planners who then did their research and wrote the plans. There was not a lot of
coordination with other directorates within the state headquarters back then until the
plans needed to be implemented. When plans needed to be exercised, they were pulled
from the shelves and updated to fit the situation they were being used for and
coordination was accomplished to complete the mission.”
Interviewee # 1 continued answering this question by describing the current
contingency planning process and how it has affected planning for the CMD. He said
“the process changed and that operational planning moved over to the J-5 and they were
69
given the responsibility to do contingency planning with a joint planning group. Now
plans are drafted in an iterative process4 using JOPES as our format and we do the
contingency planning. Current operations planning and crisis action planning still occurs
within the J-3 planning staff.” This view of planning conflicts with interviews # 2, 3 and
4. They described the planning being conducted currently as disjointed and haphazard.
Interviewee #3 described the current conduct of contingency planning by saying,
“How we say it’s accomplished is through joint planning groups where we receive intent
from the commanding general and the joint staff and we do contingency planning where
all the directors participate in JPG periodically to help develop and pump out joint plans.
In reality, there is no deliberate joint planning that’s done.”
Interviewee # 3 described the current planning process by explaining, “We do
crisis action planning here in the J-3 with some help from the J-5 shop. During
operational planning the J-5 planners, who are mostly majors, try to set up JPGs but they
don’t have much luck in pinning the generals down to get intent and guidance. They also
receive nominal support and participation by the directors. They often get second and
third stringers to participate in the JPGs with no consistency from any shop about who
shows up. The (J-5) planners usually just throw their hands in the air and try to do the
work themselves.”
Interviewee #2 answered the question by explaining that it “depends upon the
situation and the mission we are planning for. Long range joint planning is done through
joint planning groups using JOPP and the goal is to create a CONPLAN. Most often,
4 An iterative process is a process for calculating a desired result by means of a repeated cycle of operations. An iterative process should be convergent, i.e., it should come closer to the desired result as the number of iterations increases (Principia Cybernetica, 2008)
70
however, the requirement to produce a plan evolves very quickly and there is not enough
time to exercise the contingency planning process. When that happens, it is usually a
small number of people who are directed to conduct crisis action planning and produce a
plan.
Disaster planning is usually dictated as a crisis action planning process and that
process, unfortunately, happens in a very small vacuum. Although we do have operations
planning groups lined up, we don’t always have everyone available when we need to do
planning.”
Interviewee #2 continued, “A lot of times it is a J-3 planner who receives
guidance and direction from the J-3 and does the coordination with the G-3 and the A-3
to conduct an abbreviated MDMP process. The Director, J-3 is involved and directs a
course of action so there is no course of action (COA) comparison. The COA is directed
and the planning process consists of putting together task and purpose and ensuring the
capabilities exist within the units that are going to execute the plan. The bottom line is
that most planning occurs as crisis action planning with a very small group and very little
input from the rest of the headquarters.
As the operation begins to develop, we’ll form an operations planning group to
plan 24-96 hours out and produce FRAGOS for the operation. It’s just a matter of getting
the right people at the table to do the planning and produce the products. I think it’s a
challenge with the little training that goes on and the training that’s actually available”.
Interviewee #4 described the current contingency planning process saying, “From
a joint perspective, it’s conducted haphazardly [sic] at best. The planning is haphazard
because the vast bulk of the staff is from the land component. Which means, by and
71
large, the Air Component gets dragged into doing planning via the Army National Guard
mentality, not through true DoD Joint Planning Processes.”
Interviewee # 4 continued, saying, “Another challenge is that there is not enough
manpower. The Air staff and the Army staff all have their normal functions that they
have to perform. There is some extra manpower that the Army has leveraged into the
joint staff but, by and large, those are positions that are one deep. Those folks often times
have collateral duties back in their Service Components and it’s a real challenge to get
Army Air and joint into these meetings (JPGs) for a lot of these different planning
process because there is simply not enough folks to go to them. Often times, what
happens is secondary or tertiary individuals get tasked to attend the JPG planning
meetings. They are not the right people for the job and may not have the expertise to
provide good information to the group. The result is that a less than perfect product
comes out of the planning group.”
Interviewees # 2 and 5 described the results of the current contingency planning
process. Interviewee #2 said, “The net result is that we have not published any
operational plans since we created the J-5 shop, with the exception of the Continuity of
Operations – Continuity of Governance (COOP-COG) plan which was originally written
by someone from the J-3 shop who was writing for someone in the J-5 shop. All of this is
for operational planning. For strategic planning, we have a fairly effective strategic
planning effort because the J-5’s good at strategic planning and that goes pretty well.
The one thing we have not done, because we can’t wrap our arms around it, is tying our
resources together. We have not tied the resources to strategic planning goals so the
72
available resources are doled out without regard to whether or not they reinforce our
strategic goals.”
Interviewee #5 explained that the current contingency planning process was
going, “Not very well at this headquarters from my perspective but we’re constantly
looking at that and, in fact, we’re getting ready to re-organize. Planning is supposed to
be done in the J-5 shop to develop operational plans for us to direct field exercises. Since
I have been here, no matter how much effort we have put in, we have received zero plans
out of the J-5 shop so we are going to take a look at changing that and see if there is a
better way to do that but we’re not doing well at all with our operational plans.
The only plan that we have published was the COOP plan but it was a painful
year and a half process. Now, we are working on the JRSOI plan. We have been
working on that for a year and a half and we still have no solid plan.
Analysis:
The interviews show that operational planning was conducted by the Civil Service
Division operations cell prior to the JFHQ transformation process (see figure 24, page
64). They also show that there was little to no coordination or input from the other staff
sections during the planning process.
Operational planning was moved from the Civil Service Division to the J-5 during
the JFHQ transformation and the Civil Service Division evolved into the J-3. Current
operations planning and crisis action planning remained in the J-3. These moves are
consistent with the planning doctrine laid out in JP 5-0:
(1) The joint force J-5’s effort focuses on future plans. The timeframe of focus for this effort
varies according to the level of command, type of operation, JFC’s desires, and other
73
factors. Typically the emphasis of the future plans effort is on planning the next phase of
operations or sequels to the current operation. In a campaign, this could be planning the
next major operation (the next phase of the campaign).
(2) Planning also occurs for branches to current operations (future operations planning). The
timeframe of focus for future operations planning varies according to the factors listed
for future plans, but the period typically is more near-term than the future plans
timeframe. Future planning could occur in the J-5 or JPG, while future operations
planning could occur in the joint operations center or J-3.
(3) Finally, current operations planning addresses the immediate or very near-term planning
issues associated with ongoing operations. This occurs in the joint operations center or J-
3 (JP 5-0, 2006, III-57).
It is not clear whether all staff directorates and planners within the JFHQ
understand the contingency planning process and how it is supposed to work doctrinally.
California’s JPG SOP is consistent with both JP 5-0 and JP 5-00.2 in the organization,
composition and conduct of the JPG. Recognizing that this document has recently been
fielded to the joint staff sections, adequate time is needed for the joint staff sections to
understand and become comfortable with the document and the JPG process. The JPG
SOP should certainly help the process and its validation is a definite step in the right
direction.
Analysis of the interviews identify JOPP as the current contingency planning
process, outlined in JP 5-0, and the JOPES format used for the structure of the plan itself.
JP 5-0 uses the same format as the one identified in CJCSM 3122.03B. The joint plan
format is listed in JP 5-0; annex C (JP 5-0, 2006, C-1). The JOPES plan format identified
in CJCSM 3122.03B was used because JP 5-0 was not released for distribution until
December 2006, ten months after CJCSM 3122.03B was released for distribution.
74
It appears that there is not enough emphasis from the joint staff directorates to
ensure adequate participation in the process. When the staff begins the JPG process, there
is no consistency from the various joint staff directorates on who is supposed to
participate in the process. The result is a JPG process full of stops and starts, with a staff
that has to constantly go over the same information because the membership and
composition of the JPG keeps changing. The few plans produced by the J-5 is evidence of
this lack of consistency.
Another significant issue is that because the joint staff has such difficulty
exercising the JPG process, required contingency plans are not being developed as
rapidly as they need to be. When the need arises to exercise a plan, it is either not
complete or has not been developed yet, creating the necessity to exercise the CAP
process. It appears as though the CAP process is the norm, rather than the exception,
when it comes to joint planning.
Another issue that was raised is the lack of available manpower and resources has
had a negative impact on joint planning capability. The shortage of planners in the J-5
and shortage of other available personnel from the other joint staff sections to man and
operate the JPG has hampered efforts to complete and publish operational plans.
The analysis of the interviews appears to show that resources are not tied to the
strategic goals for the CMD. The strategic plan is an excellent resource to use to ensure
this area is reviewed and adjusted to ensure that resources are in line with the CMD’s
strategic goals.
75
Question #4
Explain how the transformation to JFHQ has changed the requirements for planning and how that differs from how planning was conducted before the transformation.
Six of nine persons interviewed responded to this question. Interviewee #1
answered this question by explaining, “The transformation to JFHQ has required us to
become far more formal in our planning process. Meaning if we are going to do plans
that are doctrinally correct, we need to use the doctrinal processes outlined in JOPES and
the JOPP processes to accomplish our planning. This has resulted in two significant
outcomes. One I see as being very positive and the other as very challenging.
The positive aspect is that to do the planning; we are using a joint planning group
which means that every staff section and every staff directorate participates in the
planning process. Being involved in the planning process allows them to develop their
annexes and develop plans that they are familiar with and they understand and that it
reflects their ability to support the overall operation of the department (CMD). This gets
them integrated into the process from the very beginning so there are no major surprises
out there when we have to go operational with these plans.
This was not the case with the old process because the way we used to do it, the
plan was written and just handed to them and people didn’t always take the time to read
them or understand the implications of the plan until it was time to actually initiate the
plan and that was when we discovered there were all sorts of challenges. The positive is
that we have a lot of people now involved in the planning process, providing information
to the planners that were not involved in the past. This makes our plans far more
credible, far more accurate and far more implementable.
76
The downside to the new process is that it takes a lot longer to accomplish a plan
because there are so many moving parts and it is a challenge with our limited staffing to
get everybody together at the same time and move forward in an expeditious manner.
The other downside is than in most of our staff sections we tend to be just one or two
people deep. With limited resources from the Service Components it is probable that
from one JPG meeting to the next, you will not have the same list of participants because
someone who participated last week got pulled off to perform some other critical task so
there is a constant re-training and backing-up that is necessary to bring everybody up to
speed. I think that plays a real role in extending the amount of time it takes to get plans
approved and on the shelf.”
Interviewee # 9 agreed with interviewee #1, saying, “We have a directed joint
planning process now, a JPG and OPG process that basically did not exist before the
transformation. Now you have an individual that is the lead planner and you have the
chief of staff that is, at least, steering the process by giving his guidance and marching
orders from the general officers. You’ve also got other staff members to do the
coordination with the Service Components so that’s a significant change.
Before the transformation you had a couple of guys running around conducting
crisis action planning, doing as much coordination as they could and a lot of it was done
in a vacuum. Now I think you do have the participation from all of the staff sections
providing all of the details that need to get into the plan. At least it works that way on the
long range planning; crisis action planning is still at the level it was prior to the
transformation with a couple guys sitting down to write up an order quickly. I think that
will change as the long range plans and CONPLANS are developed, and we staff the J-3
77
shop with the level of operational planners that we need there might be a little more
contingency planning and a larger group that’s coordinating so I think it’ll get better.”
Interviewee #8 also agreed with Interviewees #1 and #9, saying, “We now do
planning right out of doctrinal publications like JP 5-0 for crisis action planning since the
transformation. How that differs from before is, for example, we would take a captain or
a lieutenant and tell them write the emergency operation plan or emergency procedures
manual plan and they would do it in a vacuum. It’s sort of a legacy way of doing it. I
could see a way of doing it where junior planners would write the plan and publish these
plans and we would put them on a shelf. Nobody would read the plan or even look at it
again until the emergency hit. So, while we kind of continue to do planning that way, at
least we have the road map and the realization that the requirement needs to be something
different.”
Interviewee #5, although agreeing that the JFHQ transformation has allowed the
planning process to become more formalized, is a little more critical about the execution
portion of the planning process. He said, "Transformation has made the planning process
more formalized and thus, more labor and time intensive." I would argue that at this point
in the JFHQ transformation, things are less efficient than they used to be. Part of that has
to do with the expectations of the civilian leadership of the National Guard.
There is an expectation that the National Guard be prepared to respond in a far
greater fashion than it has traditionally has been expected to respond. In decades past,
three days was acceptable to muster a force and get out in the field. Now, that
expectation from the governor is that we be prepared to have a force out on the street
within 12 – 24 hours. This requires a tremendously different level of planning and
78
execution capability. This has driven a requirement for far more intensive planning and
pre-coordination with field organizations and units.”
Interviewee #3 describes the transformation process as merely an extension of
how California was moving forward before the JFHQ transformation process began. He
said, “We have always had some sort of all hazards plan within the state to execute for
emergencies. Now we are refining those and doing a better job of defining the plans and
identifying things such as rules for the use of force, Joint Reception, Staging and Onward
Integration (JRSOI) and things we had not specifically identified before. We would have
still done those things, just under a different name but with the same outcomes. We are
trying to tweak our plans to make them better, we have a better process now, rather just a
have couple of majors using MDMP and sitting in the corner writing plans like we have
in the past.
Before the transformation, missions were service-centric. When requirements
came down to support state missions, the Army Guard would do its own thing and the Air
Guard would do its own thing based on the mission requirements. There was no Joint
Task Force where one chain of command was in charge and directed both services.
During state missions Army and Air Guard units may be working together in the same
area but they reported to different chains of command.”
Interviewee #3 goes further in his explanation and compares the processes used
before and after the transformation. He also describes some problems with the process
saying, “This process has changed a lot since the transformation. Everybody is part of the
process and everybody has input to include the annexes so they are joint plans but they
are painfully slow in coming.
79
Assuming we had a very efficient planning cell that actually cranked out plans, I
could answer this question differently, but right now I cannot. So what we end up doing
is we take general plans and we write OPORDS out of the J-3 shop. We just develop the
order specifically for the mission and then we execute. The off-the-shelf (OTS) stuff just
is not working right now.
What we need is a J-5 shop with an operational planner running it, fully staffed,
with a plan to say what plans are needed and prioritize them with funding placed against
those plans to write and exercise them. Lacking that, we need a J-5 shop with good
planners on the staff that can do all these things.
Right now we have a J-5 shop with good planners but they run up against other
staff sections that don’t want to support the JPG process because the planners are just a
bunch of majors telling them what they need to do. What we may need to do is move
operational plans under the direction of an operational planner, possibly the J-3, until we
can fix this and then move the plans back to the J-5 where they are supposed to be. No
matter how doctrinally sound your organizational structures, it is personalities that drive
this process. Sometimes they work really well and sometimes they do not. One of the
things we need make clear is that the J-staff is great. They really work well together and
are morphing to fit our needs.
The JPG process is also personality driven. You may have some staff sections that
support the process, take everything seriously and work very hard to produce a good
product. Other sections may not be supportive and may only pay lip service to the
process. When this happens, the planners either have to write the plans themselves or
spend lots of time chasing people down to get them to complete their sections of the plan
80
Analysis
The interviews show that the current operational planning process is conducted
more formally than prior to the JFHQ transformation. The positive aspects of this change
show that there is more involvement and input from the other staff sections into the
planning process. This results in better familiarity with the completed plans and ensures
the capabilities of the other staff sections are fully integrated into the plans. It also makes
the completed plans more credible with fewer adjustments required when they need to be
exercised.
The negative aspects of the more formalized process include an increased
planning timeline due to the increase in coordination required to exercise the process.
Validation of the California JPG SOP and familiarity with the JPG process would
certainly help alleviate this problem.
Another problem is that participation in the JPG process places additional strain
on the joint staff sections and Service Components because of limited resources
available. Some joint staff sections do not have sufficient personnel available to provide
dedicated support to the JPG process. The result is inconsistent participation and high
turnover from the various staff section supporting in the JPG process. It also results in the
JPG having to constantly re-train new members and re-visit previous steps to get the new
members up to speed so the process can move forward. Analysis of the information from
the previous question reinforces this aspect about JPG participation.
One of the more profound changes brought out during the interviews is in the area
of expectation management. Prior to the JFHQ transformation, the CMD was required to
be prepared to provide support to the Office of Emergency Services (OES) for state
81
emergencies. The expected response time to that request was three days. Currently, the
requirement still exists for the CMD to provide the same level of support to OES but the
expected response time had dropped from three days to between twelve and twenty-four
hours, possibly sooner, depending on the emergency.
This dramatic drop in response time places additional requirements on the
operational planners to provide more detailed plans, and increased pre-coordination
efforts from the J-3 to ensure that the execution timelines can be met.
One aspect that does not appear to have changed is the lack of consistent support
from the various staff sections and Service Components for the operation planning
efforts. Several interviewees attribute this lack of support to lack of resources, but not
all. The interviews indicate that some of the problems resulting in the lack of support to
the JPG process may be personality driven. One interviewee mentioned that if a staff
section does not support the JPG process and only pays “lip service”, the other staff
sections are either forced to pick up the slack or the process may extend indefinitely.
This may be a contributing factor in the lack of completed plans produced from the J-5.
The interviews reiterate that operational planning was conducted by the Civil
Service Division operations cell prior to the JFHQ transformation process and reinforce
the view that there was very little coordination or input from the other staff sections
during the planning process. This lack of coordination and input resulted in a lack of
understanding of the plan content, requiring multiple changes and more time before the
plans could be executed.
Another issue is that, prior to the JFHQ transformation, operational plans were
service specific. The Army and Air Guard were tasked for missions but, normally did not
82
coordinate with each other. Each Service Component provided support based on its own,
service-centric, mission requirements. During state emergencies, there might have been
both Army and Air Guard units working on the same type mission and in the same area
but they did not coordinate with each other and reported through different chains of
command.
Question #5
Please describe from your perspective what process or standards are used in the planning process within your organization?
Nine of nine persons interviewed responded to this question. Interviewee #1
described the processes but separated operational planning from strategic planning and
allowed each process to be described independently. “In the operational planning aspect,
we attempt to follow the JOPP process with JOPES as the format for the plan and
annexes. The exception is that we do not work the Time Phased Force Deployment Data
(TPFDD) process. We do not do that portion of the planning, which is critical in most
joint staffs, because the level we are operating at is a little different.
We use the JOPP process which follows closely the Army’s Decision Making
Process or MDMP. We seek to accomplish one step of the MDMP process with each
JPG meeting so it may be two or three weeks, given time constraints, between individual
steps of the process.
On the organizational side of strategic planning, we very much focus on using the
strategic planning model that has been developed and is taught by the American
Management Association (see Appendix A). It is basically an outgrowth of Michael
83
Porter’s work from 1986 where we do an analysis and then we approach strategic
planning from the five major planning questions. These questions are:
1. Where are we today as an organization?
2. Where do we want to be in the future?
3. How are we going to get there?
4. Who does what? and analyzing our progress
5. Are we on track? If not, do we need to change our procedure or our plan?
At the War College, it is often referred to as ends, ways and means. We try to stick with
the terminologies described by the American Management Association because we are
talking about organizational settings, rather than national strategic settings.”
Interviewees #2 and #3 both agreed that operational planning used a modified
version of JOPP and explained that additional training on the JOPP was needed before
the joint staff was able to move completely away from the Army-centric MDMP process
and fully embrace the JOPP. Interviewee #3 further expounded on the information
saying: “Our operational planning is trying to use the JOPP and JPG processes.
However, there are only a couple of people who are even familiar with JOPP and the staff
needs to have formal training to be able to fully transition to that process. Most people
do not even have any operational planning experience. The only time they have done any
planning was, most likely, at the tactical level. That is why most are at least semi-
comfortable with the MDMP process. It is the only formal planning process they have
been exposed to and that is what they revert to when put into a position where they need
to do planning.”
84
Interviewees #4, #5 and #6 all described the planning process as MDMP or an
abbreviated form of MDMP. Interviewees #7, #8 and #9 described the planning process
the same way but didn’t expand on the information.
Interviewee # 6 said, “We mainly use the Army’s Military Decision Making
Process (MDMP) for long range planning. We use MDMP that is colored a bit by joint
publications for contingency planning. We also have internal SOPs. For instance, we
have Operational Planning Group (OPG) SOP (see chapter 2) for crisis action planning in
the J-3 shop. The OPG SOP works future planning for current operations and looks out
12 to 72 hours as opposed to what the J-5 shop does when it leads JPGs that focus the
planning efforts further out for future operations and CONPLANS (contingency plans).”
Interviewee #5 expanded on the description used by Interviewee #4, but went
further by adding Army specific issues, saying “We use the abbreviated MDMP. We
make every attempt to use the deliberate MDMP but time is usually against us so that is
the process we use. We have a couple of doctrinal planning publications that we use but a
lot of it is institutional knowledge drawn from the way the Army does things.
We try to incorporate those doctrinal procedures from the joint planning
perspective with the joint planning publications and joint terminology documents used
for the standards of the joint plan. I think that it is very limited because you have a lot of
legacy people that look at it predominately from the Army side because this headquarters
is predominately Army so planning has a decidedly Army flavor to it.”
Interviewee #4 added additional information about Air Guard specific issues,
saying, “The primary process or standard is the Army version of MDMP. The Air Guard
uses a highly modified version of the MDMP that probably would not look terribly
85
similar to the Army. Unfortunately Air Guard personnel feel very spiteful in some of
these JPG meetings that seem to take an eternal amount of time and produce little or no
results.”
I asked the following question, looking for clarification about his highly modified
version of the MDMP that the Air Guard was using. When you are talking about
planning in the Air Guard, you are talking about the Joint Air Operations Planning
Process (JAOPP)?
Interviewee #4 responded, “I’m talking about just the decision making process
from the time I receive a requirement until I have some kind of solution ready to go. I
believe that process within the Air Guard happens far faster than the Army Guard when
the leadership allows that to occur.
Sometimes the Air Guard component in the joint staff is restrained by leadership
when they want this kind of a process to occur because that is the way they were trained.
The JFHQ piece only adds more trouble to that because now you are not only taking the
Service Component MDMP process from the Army; you are leveraging it across the joint
spectrum into the Air Guard as well, which does not normally use that process.”
Analysis
The answers to this question indicate that there is a definite distinction between
strategic planning and operational planning at the JFHQ level. The interviewee
description of the model shows that it follows the military strategic planning and asks
some of the same basic questions to get to the results of ends, ways and means.
However, the model appears more applicable in the environment it is being used by the
CMD.
86
The AMA model (see Appendix A) described by the interviewee is a business
model that has definite advantages because it is used by various other state agencies in
California. It is a model that state planners are familiar with and understand. The five
questions that are used in the AMA model are:
• Where are we today as an organization?
• Where do we want to be in the future?
• How are we going to get there?
• Who does what? and analyzing our progress
• Are we on track? If not, do we need to change our procedure or our plan?
These questions are similar to the three questions outlined in the DoD transformation
planning guidance and the transformation article by Kem:
• How we fight
• How we do business
• How we work with our interagency and multinational partners
While these questions were identified specifically to transformation and the
process, both sets of questions can be used for either strategic planning or transformation
planning and one set could be used to answer the questions outlined in the other set.
This question raised more concerns, particularly with the application of the JOPP.
Many of the interviewees use the terms JOPP and MDMP almost synonymously as
though the two processes are the same. Although they are similar, they are different
processes, using different terminology and steps. I was unable to get clarification
regarding the Air Guard’s “highly modified version of MDMP”.
87
Another concern that surfaced is the lack of personnel trained to use the JOPP.
Lack of trained personnel can only hinder the planning process, requiring more time to be
spent on training the process, rather than writing and producing actual plans. This lack of
training has been discussed in earlier interview questions but bears particular discussion
in this area.
The lack of trained personnel in the JOPP, and the fact that there are very few
people on the joint staff who are trained to do operational planning at any level have a
negative impact on the staff’s operational planning capability. In addition, planners are
trying to apply the planning skills they have, Army MDMP at the tactical level, to write
joint plans at the operational level.
Question #6
Please describe the actions and efforts taken to train or prepare the people involved in joint planning. First, to prepare you as a director or senior staff officer, then, for the individuals involved in the planning process.
Six of nine persons interviewed responded to this question. Interviewees #1 and
#2 described the formal training processes for themselves and within their staff sections.
Interviewee #1 described the process in three steps. “Personally, I have taken a
number of classes on MDMP. I have also taken several JOPES courses through the Joint
Knowledge Center on JKO. I have been to training courses provided by the joint training
command and have had a great deal of interaction with my peers in other states to help
nail down specifically how we would conduct joint planning. I’ve also done some
facilitation of the planning process.
In terms of the folks on the J-5 staff, everyone has taken some courses through the
joint force command and several have taken the Joint Planners Orientation Course
88
(JPOC). We just had one of our folks take the week long course put on by the
NORTHCOM on Defense Support Civil Authorities (DSCA) planning. We assist each
other as a team in terms of facilitating and co-facilitating planning meetings so that we
can build skill sets within the J-5.”
“The final piece of the package is how the individual members of the joint
planning group prepare for their stint in joint planning. We had originally started out
doing a multiple session course on joint planning and teaching the MDMP process
independent of any particular plan. The intent was to train everyone in the entire process
and then we would initiate planning.
What we discovered was that, with the shortage of people and a constantly
changing environment, we would end up teaching the same thing over and over again. It
was not very effective so now what we do is teach a small amount of the process and
immediately begin working with the group of people we have to accomplish that part of
the process. We train as we go, explain to people what it is we need to do and then
actually do it. The next time we get back together we talk about the next stage of the
process, and then we accomplish that.”
Interviewee #2 described the process for the leaders and joint staff sections. He
said, “For the leaders, most of them receive some staff training at their service staff
schools or senior staff schools. We have not sent more than a couple of people to joint
staff schools because of funding issues. Priority of school funding goes to military
occupational specialty (MOS) schools and service specific professional military
education (PME). There is not a lot of money left over for joint schools and we have to
89
make sure we are not preventing anyone from attending MOS or PME courses before we
commit funds to joint courses.
Training for individuals within the various joint staff sections follows the same
process as the leadership so we do not get a lot of opportunities to send folks to the joint
schools. What we have done here in California is try to provide some training for the
folks in the various staff sections. The J-5 put together a joint MDMP (JOPP) course a
while back and trained a bunch of folks. The problem was that not everyone was able to
attend all the training so it was not as effective as it could have been.”
Interviewee #8 agreed with some of the comments from interviewees #1 and #2.
He said, “We have had to train several different ways. Several staff members have taken
online and distance learning courses. The Joint Planning Orientation Course (JPOC), put
on by the Joint Force Staff College is one of several courses that have been used to train
joint staff officers. There are distance-learning courses for JOPES that are available
through the Joint Knowledge Data Base online. There is also a recent course called the
Defense Support to Civil Authority (DSCA) course co-sponsored by NORTHCOM and
by ARNORTH and we have had the first of our folks that have attended that course.
In terms of the training of the participants in the other directorates, we have
discovered that we were getting constant turn over, that is why we got away from trying
to train the entire process up front. We were expecting that training to stick through the
entire JPG process but there was too much for them to digest. The amount of time
between sessions caused us to have to re-train the process every time we got together.
Interviewees #5 and #6 both described the joint training process as primarily on
the job training (OJT). Interviewee #5 said, “I know that the J-5 is trying to conduct
90
some training on the joint version of the military decision making process, the JOPP. For
most folks it is primarily self teaching, OJT, and relying on formal military education and
schools to learn those processes. A lot of the OJT is just working through the process and
that is the level of training that has gone into it. I know the J-5 is working to train the
Joint Planning Group but a lot of it is really military education. That is why we try to
make sure the field grades and groups have been exposed to military education so they
have a base to build from.”
Interviewee #6 also responded about OJT saying, “The process to transition to
JOPP and how it works will be automatic. We have not done any formal training, in
house, on how to do planning other than the real world experience our staff has. For
individual training we send people to ILE and we send people to the joint qualifications
courses but whom we send is not tied to what our needs are for planning. For me
personally, nobody here in this headquarters has done anything to train me. Everything I
bring is from my experience as a commander or a joint staff officer.
We do OJT in the J-3 shop for planning and, for everybody else; we run our own
table top exercises. These exercises help to shape what needs to get done in the planners
shop. We do not invite anyone else because we want to get our own house in order before
we take on the J-7 and train the rest of the joint staff.”
Interviewee #4 also talked about joint training and OJT but added some insights
regarding joint training at the Service Component level. He said, “The actions and efforts
to train on planning are self directed within the Air staff. We have our folks do a lot of
reading and a lot of self training to provide understanding about how the joint process
91
works and there is a lot of OJT. We talked earlier about some of the different training
venues there are, or are not available to the components.
Formalized schools that teach joint training need to be taught to officers at the O-
4 level, since that is where you usually see them enter the joint environment. Right now,
they do not get that training, in most cases until they reach the senior staff college.
The joint planning process, once again, is an educational process. Those are
primary actions for a staff officer. I believe that is a real disservice and directly affects a
senior staff officer’s ability to plan, organize, and so forth because that is a big part of the
senior service school.
Some attempts at formalized training in the joint staff has been offered for joint
positions, however I would argue that the training offered was offered by in house
personnel including myself. I don’t think anybody had been to any DoD joint school at
that time and it was, essentially, the blind teaching the blind.
Some JPME opportunities have been made available but I don’t know how many
quotas have been made available and I don’t know how many folks have been given an
opportunity to attend these schools. I know it has a real challenge to get folks to go
because there has not been a joint funded school slot.
Joint training is not career enhancing so it does not make sense to spend the
money. There is, currently, no requirement for Service Component staff officers attend
JPME courses, unless they are assigned to the joint staff, and only if those positions are
joint qualifying positions.
Funding for JPME courses has to be filled through a DoD requirement. If there is
a DoD requirement, ideally congress will appropriate the money for it. If the Joint Staff
92
tells the Combatant Commander (COCOM), in this case NORTHCOM, that there is a
requirement for the National Guard to be trained and equipped for JFHQ, they need to
allocate funds for that training and equipment. They cannot expect us to meet the
requirement if they do not give us the resources to do so.”
Analysis
The interviews demonstrate that the J-5 appears to be the only joint staff
directorate making a concerted effort to train their staff in joint planning and the JOPP
process. It was noted several times that the J-5 had made repeated attempts to train the
other staff sections on the JOPP and JPG processes with mixed results. Several
interviewees mentioned in-house training or training conducted by J-5. The mixed
success illustrates the lack of consistent effort on the part of the other staff directorates to
support the JOPP and JPG processes.
The information gathered gives the impression that support for the JOPP and JPG
increases when command emphasis is placed on the process and products. When that
command emphasis wanes, that support wanes as well.
Several interviewees mentioned OJT as a viable training source. The issue with
using OJT as a training source relates directly to the number of personnel trained to
conduct joint planning. OJT is not an effective training tool unless you have a sufficient
number of personnel trained and experienced in the area that OJT is occurring. In this
case, there is a recognized lack of sufficient personnel trained to conduct joint operational
planning to have any effective OJT program in this area.
An issue raised by one of the Service Components was the lack of funding for
JPME courses and the resistance of the Service Components to fund such courses. The
93
interviewee mentioned that Service Components are very hesitant to fund such training
because joint training is not considered career enhancing by the Service Components.
This lack of support to fund joint courses compounds the issues mentioned earlier about
joint staff support for the JOPP and JPG processes, as well as the lack of completed and
published plans from the J-5.
Question #7
When you think about planning in the JFHQ, what works well with the current planning process? What would you change?
Six of nine persons interviewed responded to this question. Every person
interviewed had positive things to say about the joint planning process since the
transformation to JFHQ. Some of the recommendations were very insightful and
everyone seemed genuinely interested in finding ways to improve the process.
Interviewee #1 said, “Having all of the staff sections involved in the planning
process is a marked improvement over how it used to be done. Getting larger
participation creates better buy in. The staff provides input and it gives them the
opportunity to feel like they have a say in what the plan is going to look like.
What I would change is I would have dedicated representatives that were given
the planning process as a primary job responsibility. This would improve the overall
operational planning process because we would not have a constant shifting of people in
and out. It would also allow us to accelerate the planning timeline. We would not have
to continually retrain so we could get plans completed more quickly.”
Interviewees #3, #5, and #6, all recommended changes to the current planning
process. Interviewee # 3 said, “The current planning process, although it is getting better,
94
still needs some work. Before the transformation, we had the J-3 shop, although it was
called the civil support division, responsible for building our contingency plans. The
plans were usually created without a whole lot of input from the other staff sections.
The difference now is that we have a lot more involvement from the other staff
sections to provide input for the plans. That is a good thing, except we have not been
able to complete any plans to put them on the shelf. We did complete the COOP-COG
plan but it was only after a whole lot of heavy emphasis from the leadership and flag
officers because there was a state mandated submission date we had to comply with.
When operational planning was in the J-3 shop, they were able to crank out the
plans they needed. The plans needed a lot of adjustments before we could execute them
for state emergencies but at least we had plans to work from.
We need to either change the way we are currently doing operational planning or
look at how we are supporting the J-5 planning section. One of the things we need to
decide on is whether operational planning should be done in the J-5 shop, where it is
now, or move it back to the J-3 shop, where it was before the transformation.
Doctrinally, the J-5 shop has the responsibility to conduct operational planning.
That’s an issue right now because the J-5 shop does not have enough planners to do all of
the planning that is required from their shop. The J-5 does an excellent job at strategic
planning for the California Military Department. They are very good at it and I would
not want to change that at all.
The J-5 is having problems getting plans out on the operational planning side. I
know they are short planners and, maybe, that is the problem we need to address. With
the shortage of planners in the J-5, the planners they do have are being tasked to do both
95
strategic and operational planning. They do not have enough planners to provide for both
efforts and something has to fall out. In this instance, it is the operational planning that is
suffering.
The J-3 shop has the operational planning capability and the planners who can do
the work. Maybe we should move operational planning back to the J-3 and let them do
the planning.”
Interviewee #6 said nearly the same thing as Interviewee #3. He said, “Crisis
action planning works very well but we need more leadership emphasis on planning
involvement for the contingency planning process to get better. Two years ago the J-3
shop made the decisions and had the responsibility for deliberate operational planning.
We moved the operational planning process to the J-5 because, doctrinally, that is where
it is supposed to be. I think that was a failure because the skill sets and focus is not on
operational planning, it is more on strategic planning.
We need to bring the operational planning back to the J-3 shop where we have the
time and energy to focus on it. The other advantage is that the guys that are writing the
plans are the guys that will execute it. We should move the operational planning to J-3
and leave the strategic planning to J-5.
Interviewee #5 also suggested changes to the operational planning process but
from a slightly different view. He said, “I think the process of the planning groups, the
OPG and JPG, works well. During the San Diego fire storm in 2007, we conducted the
operations planning group (OPG) to do planning and, as it went through the process, it
began to work better and provide more detail in some functional areas that needed to be
covered in the fragmentary orders (FRAGOS). I’m not a logistician nor am I an
96
administrative person, so having those people involved in the planning process is of great
benefit. You now get their input whereas before that did not exist and it was just one
person’s perspective.
What I would change is to have the operations planning group meet intermittently
during the crisis action planning process to look further out. It is too late to try to meet
initially during the battle rhythm. There is a lot more planning and coordination that
needs to be done earlier, in order to push the planning process ahead of the current
planning cycle. Instead of looking 12 hours out, you are actually able to look out 72
hours.”
What I would also change is that I would put a future operations planning cell
back in the G-3 and A-3 shops so they could do some of the initial coordination. They
could bring the initial planning to the table to coordinate with the rest of the staff. It
would allow you to push your planning out further.”
Interviewee #2 also had concerns about the planning process but considered it part
of a larger problem, saying, “Here is the biggest problem, we are trying to run a JFHQ on
a TDA that was designed many years ago for a totally different type of headquarters and
it doesn’t work. You take the TDA positions that you have, 354 in California, and split
them up between the joint staff and the Army Guard staff. Right off the bat, the Army
Guard is reluctant because they had all those positions before and they now have to give a
bunch of them up, 138 positions.
We have a G-3 shop on the Army side but every time I walk in that door, I do not
see a G-3 shop. I do not see any future planners or current planners. What I see in there
is a POTO (Plans, Operations and Training Officer) office. They have a MOB
97
(Mobilization) officer, a training officer and they have a FIRO (Force Integration and
Readiness Officer). We say we have a G-3 but we really don’t.
Downstairs, in the J-3 we have a POMSO (Plans, Operations and Military Support
Office). We’re calling it the J-3 and it is closer to a true J-3 than the G-3 is to a true G-3
because the J-3 has a planning cell and they have planners. We make it work because of
our full time state active duty (SAD)5 system here in California.
If we were relying on technicians and AGRs, we would not be in the situation we
are in right now. We would be in the same position as most other states, dual-hatting
everybody and J-staff directorates that were only one and two deep, trying to get
additional ADSW money so we could get extra people to do the work that needs to be
done.
We have a funding system here in California that allows us to organize our state
headquarters so we can staff a full time J-1 through J-8 on the joint staff side and have an
Army and Air staff. That is a real benefit and it allows us to have a J-34 (operations
support), a J-35 (operations planning) and a J-37 (operations training). It allows us to
have a number of planners in the J-5 and a number of training and exercise people in the
J-7. It has now allowed us to start up and staff a J-4 shop, all because of our state active
duty (SAD) system.
5The SAD system mimics the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) system by providing full time soldiers to fill positions. The primary difference between a Title 32 AGR and an SAD soldier is that Title 32 AGR soldiers are federally activated while SAD soldiers are activated through a state funded system. Another major difference is that SAD soldiers receive retirement benefits through the California State Personnel Retirement System (CALPERS) and Title 32 AGR retirement is through the federal military retirement system. SAD soldiers provide the JFHQ with the manpower it needs to operate the JFHQ at the level they are expected to operate to support current mission requirements (CA-JFHQM 5000-1, 66).
98
At the national level, this is not going to work real well unless you dual-hat
everybody and throw resources at it. It works in California because we have thrown the
resources at it. Right now, California is not the model, it’s an anomaly.
If we had a chance to do it all over again I think I would have gotten the JFHQ
approval process completed first. The National Defense Authorization Act and other
things they have tried to accomplish through the National Guard Bureau have always
been requirements without resources. When you have the requirements being directed by
the legislative branch of government, and the Senate or Congress is behind the process,
you are directed to do it. The good thing about that process is that resources are given to
make the process happen and, as we implement, it becomes much easier because it is law
and it is codified.
We did it exactly the opposite of how we should have done it. We made it work,
took it “out of hide”, and invented stuff while we tried to figure out what we were going
to do. The whole time we were fighting the Army and the Air Guard as we went through
it. Now, that is easy to say the correct process could be followed in an idealistic world,
but the chances of us ever getting it done that way is slim to none so we had to prove
ourselves first. It came about but not without great pain.
I think we have helped ourselves in this process with the J-5 and his staff and the
work they did to help us get through the transformation process from the very beginning.
The national committees that the J-5 worked on helped him to do that. I think the J-5
helped California led the way in the JFHQ transformation process through his work on
the state initiatives. The J-5 was instrumental in helping us get through it. I came in a
99
couple of years after that got started but I give a lot of credit to the J-5 and his staff
because they worked on it (the JFHQ transformation process).”
Interviewee #4 also focused on larger, organizational issues to answer this
question. He said, “The fact that the Air Component, the Army Component, and the joint
staff are all co-located is certainly helpful. The relationships we have developed
throughout the years in a professional sense, and in a personal sense with other staff
officers certainly help. Those types of relationships work well with the current planning
process.
In my opinion, the different staff directorates need better organization and
supervision. Some of the staffing and directorates seem disjointed and do not appear to
stay focused on their job duties. Part of that is due to people coming and going, people
deploying, it’s also very much, at times, subject to the senior leadership and the protocol
leadership in the state. Units in the southern part of the state might be very focused on
something and all of a sudden a political concern comes down that takes everybody’s
attention off of what they normally are doing to take care of the latest and greatest
emergency.”
Analysis
All nine persons interviewed agreed that the JFHQ transformation has improved
the joint planning process. Although only six responded to this question, the responses
given throughout the interview process support this assertion. They commented that
there is much more involvement and interaction with the other joint staff sections. The
increased involvement from the other joint staff sections translates to better; more
detailed plans, primarily because the subject matter experts (SMEs) provide input to their
100
particular portion of the plans. They also cautioned that the support from the other joint
staff sections was intermittent and inconsistent and needs to be improved. Validation of
the California JPG SOP may help improve this inconsistency but there has not been
enough time since it was issued to determine what effects, if any, it will have on the
process.
The biggest concern with the process since the JFHQ transformation continues to
be the lack of published, complete plans from the J-5. Many interviewees praised the
successful efforts from the J-5 and his staff in the area of strategic planning and
recognized that those efforts needed to continue.
The interviewees provided several recommendations and potential solutions to
some of the challenges they were experiencing. One recommendation was to create
additional duty assignments for the personnel from the various joint staff sections for the
JPG process. This recommendation would add some weight to the JPG process and send
the message that the JFHQ leadership supports the JOPP and JPG processes. It would
also provide a valid basis for comments on the annual evaluations of those personnel
assigned to the JPG.
Another recommendation was either to provide more support to the J-5 planners
or move the operational planning process over to the planning section in the J-3. Both of
these recommendations have merit and are worthy of consideration. The J-5 section has
a limited number of planners and the operational requirements to do both strategic and
operational planning. One fix would be to increase the number of planners in the J-5,
creating a strategic planning section and an operational planning section. This
101
recommendation would be the most doctrinally correct solution, keeping the
responsibilities for planning in the J-5 where they belong.
Another recommendation, moving the operational planning responsibilities to the
J-3 also has some merit. The J-3 already has an operational planning capability in the J-
35, operations planning section. Moving the responsibility for operational planning
would relieve the J-5 of that requirement, allowing them to concentrate fully on strategic
planning; and area where they have already received accolades. It would also place the
responsibility to conduct operational planning into a planning section that already has
planning experience, but also place that responsibility under the direction of the joint staff
section that has the requirement to execute those plans.
Another recommendation was to place future operations planning capability back
into the G-3 and A-3 sections. This would give the Service Components the ability to,
not only provide a planning capability, but also give them the ability to conduct initial
coordination at the onset of plan execution. It would also provide the J-3 with a surge
planning capability during the execution of plans for state emergencies.
A serious concern was raised regarding the fact that the JFHQ was still operating
on the old state area command (STARC) table of distribution and allowances (TDA).
The TDA structure is not compatible with the JFHQ model as the positions in the
headquarters do not line up with the actual positions in the JFHQ, and, there are no joint
positions. The TDA has to be updated to match the joint table of distribution (JTD) or
replaced with the JTD for the structure to work effectively.
One solution that has worked for the JFHQ to allow them to effectively operate
the JFHQ has been the state active duty (SAD) system in California. The SAD system
102
mimics the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) system by providing full time soldiers to fill
positions. The primary difference between a Title 32 AGR and an SAD soldier is that
Title 32 AGR soldiers are federally activated while SAD soldiers are activated through a
state funded system. Another major difference is that SAD soldiers receive retirement
benefits through the California State Personnel Retirement System (CALPERS) and Title
32 AGR retirement is through the federal military retirement system. SAD soldiers
provide the JFHQ with the manpower it needs to operate the JFHQ at the level they are
expected to operate to support current mission requirements.
Another concern has been that the JFHQ transformation process was initiated and
directed down to the states before it had been resourced and approved. There have been
no resources or funding given to the states to execute the JFHQ transformation process.
The resources were gathered “out of hide” to meet the requirements issued by NGB
(NGB C&IP, 2007, 1).
Question #8
Now that your organization is well on the road to transformation, what, in retrospect would you do differently to improve the planning process? Do you believe these changes are related only to your organization or are they likely to be applicable to similar organizations?
Four of nine persons interviewed responded to this question. Interviewee #1 said,
"Some of the answer to this question goes with the previous question of what you would
change. One of the things I would do differently is to start off with an organization and
functions manual. I would have a specific pull out section that addresses planning that
could act as an SOP and we are starting to work that now. I would have a much better
handle with our SOP, the ability to explain to people the purpose of planning and the role
103
of planners so that people would understand that planning is every bit as critical as
implementing and operating.
I would approach the leadership to get the folks that are dedicated put on
additional duty appointment orders. It would allow the leadership to clearly identify the
responsibility and priority so that individuals who are tasked with planning do not have to
decipher what their number one priority is today.
I hear from some of my counterparts in other states about similar things
happening in their states. One of the other states similar to ours is on version 22B of
trying to sort out how they are going to operate in terms of planning and operations. It is
indicative of how everyone is trying to learn to play the violin while on center stage in
Carnegie Hall.”
Interviewees #4 and #5 also talked about creating an SOP that covers the specific
aspects of joint operational planning. Interviewee #5 said, “I think that what we are
doing looking at the long range contingency planning, that process works well. I think
we need an SOP that covers the implementation, the manning and the developing
procedures of how that works. The SOP needs to cover what staff sections should be part
of that group and who should be assigned. There is already excellent doctrine out there
about this but we have not been using it. In retrospect, we needed to grasp those
processes sooner by taking what the Army already figured out.
I think that if the J-5 is doing the long range planning, their organization needs to
be more robust. It needs to be filled with the people who have the right skill sets and it
takes time to make that change. I think everyone will have an issue with getting involved
104
with any kind of change to reorganize but I think it is necessary for our organization to
move forward.”
Interviewee #4 was a little more specific and talked about a manning document
for the JFHQ. He said, “I would very carefully build a joint manning document on the
DoD side of the house and get the best qualified individuals in there. I would keep the
shops relatively small with well defined missions outlining what each staff director would
do. Provide, obviously, the training and everything else that goes with that. I think these
changes would certainly improve things,
I believe challenges that we seeing at our level in our state are probably very
much applicable to other states, however there are problems that we see in this state that
may be exacerbated because we are such a large state with lots of other emergencies and
other challenges. Other states that have a very small state headquarters, with very few
things happening have a lot of these challenges hidden to them. They do not run into the
same concerns that we run into, therefore, a lot of the problems that we experience in
California do not get experienced in their state. I would argue that states like Florida,
Texas and other hurricane states that tend to have a lot more civil support requirements
probably experience very much of the same things we do.”
Interviewee #6 said, “These recommendations may be unique to our organization
but keeping the strategic planning and operational planning functions separate could be
applicable to both California and other states.
A lot of this is personality driven. I am an operator and I do operations planning.
The J-5 is a strategic planner and he does strategic planning. I would not want to do his
strategic planning and he does not like me doing the operational planning except maybe
105
that it makes sense. The focus of the J-3 is to do domestic operations response and they
should be responsible for those plans. The J-5 does strategic planning and resource
planning and all that other stuff and, like I said, the J-5 shop does that very, very well.”
Analysis
There was not a lot of new information covered in the responses to this question.
The information gathered re-enforced some of the information provided to earlier
questions.
The preponderance of responses to this question addressed the creation and use of
a joint planning SOP. Two interviewees mentioned the creation of an Organization and
Functions (O&F) Manual and a joint manning document (JMD).
The JMD, a document similar to the Air Force Unit Manning Document (UMD),
is currently being considered for JFHQ manning but there is no further information
available on the process. The O&F manual and JPG SOP are complete and being
exercised by the JFHQ staff in California to validate the documents.
Question #9
Is there anything you would like to add regarding the conduct of planning before, during, or after the transformation to the JFHQ?
Three of nine responded to this question. Interviewee #6 merely commented, “I
would just add a memo that planning is way better than it was before the transformation
but we are nowhere near where we need to be.”
Interviewee # 1 added, “I believe in our organization, the conduct of planning,
while still not smooth, has a much higher level of attention and focus than it used to have
106
because all of the staff sections are required to get involved. They are required to
understand what is going on and they are required to step up to the plate.
One of things that we did not talk about in the other questions was, as we
transition to a Joint Force headquarters, it dramatically changes the interaction with other
responder organizations in the state and the federal government. Our responsibility to
support planning external to the department has grown exponentially and I think that it is,
predominantly [sic], a result of becoming a Joint Force headquarters. Looking at
ourselves differently has caused other people and agencies to look at us differently.”
Interviewee #2 added, “I just think JFHQ is more functional after the
transformation because the TAG has his own staff and the things he needs to have done,
get done in a joint environment. The Service Components can focus on those things that
they need to do. They can task organize and provide forces to support joint missions.
When the mission is done they can pack up their stuff and go home. That leaves the joint
staff to do the planning and execution so I think it smoothes things out quite a bit. It
solves some of the inter-service issues by forcing some of these people to accept tasking
from the joint staff.
When an OPORD comes out of the J-3, it provides tasking to the Service
Components, Army Guard and Air Guard, and they are speaking on behalf of the TAG.
Transformation to JFHQ has forced everybody into that mode to work together. We did
it in the past but the Service Components were kept separate. Air Guard would go do
some air missions to support emergencies and Army Guard would do Army support but
they never really worked together.
107
The way we are doing things now is much more effective. Desert One taught us
that. We killed a bunch of people in the desert because the services would not work
together and everybody had to have their own stuff. They could not talk and they could
not train together. We ended up getting a bunch of people killed because of it.
Goldwater-Nichols was a direct result of that failure and we were forced into the
situation we have now, but it has made a huge difference. The joint planning capability is
getting better, even though it is still a struggle but at least we are moving in the right
direction; sometimes at a gradual pace, sometimes pretty fast.”
Interviewee #5 added, “I think that the JFHQ transformation process has created a
staff. Before it was just department heads but now you have a staff that works with a
guideline and a purpose. I think that joint planning is much better as a result. The
transformation process has ensured that the staff is working together to help complete the
plans. Rather than have a department responsible, you have all the staff sections
responsible for the plans, even though one staff section might be responsible for the
paperwork. So it is the staff that functions on it. It is more applicable to the way the
military does business. It is a good idea that we are going in the right direction. There
are some legacy people that will argue that we are not a joint organization. I disagree. I
think we are now, and will stay a joint organization because we function better that way.
We are a staff, not an island of office heads. As that mentality goes away slowly we will
function better.”
Analysis
This question did not generate a lot of new information. The significance of the
responses reinforces the conclusion that the transformation to JFHQ has resulted in a
108
better organized, better functioning staff with tasking authority to create and execute JTF
operations with forces from the Army and Air Components. The responses also
recognize the challenges experienced in the JOPP and JPG processes but acknowledge
that they are getting better.
An unforeseen result of the JFHQ transformation process has been the
exponential increase in requirements to the J-5 to support planning outside the CMD.
The CMD is a recognized leader in providing planning capabilities to other state agencies
and the requests for planning support from these agencies continues to increase. This
requirement creates another argument in support of the increase in planning capability to
the J-5 described earlier.
Question #10
Is there anything related to planning in the JFHQ that I might have missed or that you would like to add?
Two of nine responded to this question. Interviewees #2, #3, #4, #7, #8, #9 and
#10 did not have any final comments they wanted to add. Interviewees # 1 added, "Our
becoming a JFHQ has impacted how much we interact with other agencies in terms of
planning. The results of 9/11 and a lot of other things like the national response
framework, the Department of Homeland Security grants gave us an overall awareness of
how much is involved in preparing for emergency response.
There has been an exponential increase in planning requirements for other state
agencies. Here in California, the Office of Emergency Services (OES), Office of
Emergency Medical Services (OEMS), the California Highway Patrol (CHP). The state
109
is completely rewriting their emergency plan right now and there is a tremendous amount
of planning that is being done to provide the ability to respond.
A lot of this effort is the result of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management
Reform Act of 20066. State agencies that have primacy for planning in one area or
another, be it mass fatality or emergency medical response, or whatever it is, have been
looking at the Guard to assist their planning efforts. They see that we have a tremendous
level of experience in planning so we’ve been asked to participate in the planning
committees for virtually every state organization that is out there.
What that has done is it puts us in a position where we have had to assign each of
our planners to interact with a number of different agencies. The planners are no longer
working just internally on our planning, but working externally to help other agencies
with their planning.
The Emergency Mutual Assistance Compact (EMAC) is a state to state compact
that has to be ratified and put into law. It is an agreement that says that participating
states agree to a common process to share resources, during emergencies, with other
states and to receive reimbursement for those resources.
There is a process in place that goes into EMAC that includes things like
accepting each other’s accreditation so, if you get medical support, the accreditation is
accepted by the other state. It’s a way to allow planning across states where you will
share and access resources in other states and how you would reimburse those states. It
allows you, when you plan, to have the opportunity to look at other states for planning
when your own resources are stripped.
6 Note: The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 was never enacted. It was last discussed on the congressional floor in August 2006 and never voted on. (GovTrack.us, 2008)
110
At the CMD level we have no say in whether or not the EMAC will be initiated.
There is only one agency in each state that has the authority vested by the governing
legislature. In our state it is the state Office of Emergency Services (OES). We do have
the ability, when OES calls us and says they need some resources, to say we do not have
those right now. We can say that you can call a neighboring state and, if you want to
make contact, they can make those resources available through EMAC.”
Interviewee #5 added, “I think that the individuals involved in crisis action
planning, the documents involved and processed and the information that goes into those
plans somehow needs to be steered at a higher level during the process. The generals and
O-6s don’t usually go through the crisis action planning process. It is condensed and
takes some practice to get used to it. I think that is something we need to put on paper as
far as who is a part of that team. We need to conduct training on that planning process so
that we actually go through crisis action planning as a team and it is not just one
individual getting a phone call without involving the other key individuals.”
Interviewee #6 added, “The way to fix this for our headquarters is we should have
a “warfighter-like” exercise every other year where we have Title 10, preferable Title 10
trainers and observer controllers (OCs) come in. It should probably be the exercise
trainers from Fort Leavenworth except they need to be tuned up on domestic operations.
Bring them in and take us through the process.
The JFHQ staff should train and exercise through the exact same process that a
brigade commander takes his staff through for warfighter and, at division level, that the
division commander takes his staff through. It is a grueling staff exercise that forces
everyone to push the envelope on how to learn and improve their staff processes and
111
products. Instead of battlefield command, it would be domestic operations command and
staff synchronization, staff planning, and staff execution through a command post
exercise (CPX). It would be like a battle command training program (BCTP) exercise for
JFHQ.”
Analysis
The responses to this question provided some good insights about how the JFHQ
transformation process has created opportunities and challenges for joint planning beyond
the CMD. Inter-departmental interaction has created an increase in requests for planning
support to other state agencies. This opportunity would have been difficult prior to the
JFHQ transformation because of the separate planning functions of the Service
Components.
There were two recommendations that came out of this question. The first
recommendation was to have more senior level staff involvement and interaction into the
joint planning process. This satisfies the recommendation made earlier about more senior
level emphasis on the joint planning process and would encourage more consistent
participation and support to the JOPP and JPG processes.
The other recommendation had to do with training the JFHQ staff and exercising
the plans that have been developed. The interviewee recommended a “warfighter” type
exercise that would evaluate the JFHQ staff process and validate the JOPP and JPG
planning processes. This recommendation has a lot of merit and should be considered.
112
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The focus of this study was to determine the most significant challenges to
implement a doctrinally correct joint planning process when transforming from a state
military headquarters to a Joint Force headquarters in California. In order to do this
numerous interviews were conducted and the results of those interviews were analyzed
and compared against each other and with the guidance issued to California during the
JFHQ transformation process.
Summary of Findings from Chapter 4
The analysis in chapter 4 compared the interviews conducted with nine members
of the JFHQ California staff to each other and the guidance issued to California during
the JFHQ transformation process. The analysis is divided into three areas: 1) JFHQ joint
planning challenges and concerns, 2) positive changes and successes, and 3)
recommendations from the interviewees.
JFHQ Joint Planning Challenges And Concerns
Analysis of the interviews and guidance from NGB identified the challenges and
concerns in the following areas:
Lack of published plans
The lack of published, complete plans from the J-5 is the biggest concern
identified with the JFHQ transformation process. The joint staff has such difficulty
exercising the JPG process that contingency plans are not being developed as rapidly as
113
they need to be. There appears to be not enough emphasis from the JFHQ leadership to
the joint staff directorates to ensure adequate participation in the JPG process.
There is no consistency from the various joint staff directorates about who is
supposed to participate in the JPG process. There is inconsistent participation and high
turnover from the various staff section supporting the JPG process and the JPG must
constantly re-train new members and re-visit previous steps to get these new members up
to speed so the process can move forward. This inconsistency has resulted in more time
needed for planning and increased coordination required to exercise the JPG process.
Participation in the JPG process places additional strain on the joint staff sections
and Service Components because of limited resources available. Lack of available
manpower and resources has negatively impacted the joint planning capability.
Resources are not tied to the strategic goals for the CMD.
Lack of Trained Planners
The J-5 appears to be the only joint staff directorate making a concerted effort to
train their staff in joint planning and the JOPP process. The lack of personnel trained to
use the JOPP hinders the planning process, requiring more time to be spent on training
the process, rather than writing and producing actual plans.
It is not clear whether all staff directorates and planners within the JFHQ
understand the contingency planning process and how it is supposed to work doctrinally.
The terms JOPP and MDMP are used almost synonymously, as though the two processes
are the same. They are similar but different processes, using different terminology and
steps. This misconception creates confusion within the JPG process and delays the
completion of contingency plans.
114
There is a lack of funding for JPME courses and the resistance of the Service
Components to fund such courses. Planners are trying to apply the planning skills they
have, Army MDMP at the tactical level, to write joint plans at the operational level. Joint
staff sections are using OJT to train planners in the JOPP. The fact that very few people
on the joint staff are trained to do operational planning, at any level, significantly hinders
this effort. OJT is not an effective training tool unless you have a sufficient number of
personnel trained and experienced in the area that OJT is occurring. In this case, there is
a recognized lack of sufficient personnel trained to conduct joint operational planning
significantly hinders efforts to have any effective OJT program.
Organizational Structure and Resourcing
The JFHQ is still operating on the old state area command (STARC) table of
distribution and allowances (TDA). The TDA structure is not compatible with the JFHQ
model as the positions in the headquarters do not line up with the actual positions in the
JFHQ, and, there are no joint positions. The transformation to a JFHQ was initiated and
directed down to the states before it had been resourced and approved. There have been
no resources or funding given to the states to execute the JFHQ transformation process.
The resources were gathered “out of hide” to meet the requirements issued by NGB.
A review of the guidance issued to California during the JFHQ transformation
process and the literature regarding joint planning showed that although guidance was
issued to the states regarding implementation of the JFHQ transformation process, the
majority of the guidance was vague and opens to a wide variety of interpretations (NGB
P03-0044, 2003, 2).
115
Requirements for External Support
There has been an exponential increase in requirements to the J-5 to support
planning outside the CMD. The CMD is a recognized leader in planning capabilities to
state organizations and the requests for planning support from these other state agencies
continues to increase. Inter-departmental interaction has created an increase in requests
for planning support to other state agencies. The drop in expected CMD response time for
state emergencies places additional requirements on the operational planners to provide
more detailed plans, and increased pre-coordination efforts from the J-3 to ensure that the
execution timelines can be met.
Positive changes
Analysis of the interviews and guidance from NGB identified the following
positive changes resulting from the JFHQ transformation process:
More Formal Planning Process
The operational planning process is conducted more formally than prior to the
JFHQ transformation with more involvement and input from the other staff sections.
This is definitely a positive change to the operational planning process. The more formal
process ensure all joint staff sections are aware of the requirements for planning and are
involved in the content of the plans produced by the JPG.
Strategic Planning
The AMA model used for strategic planning is a business model that has definite
advantages because it is also suitable for use at various other state agencies in California.
116
The efforts of the J-5 and his staff in the area of strategic planning have been very
successful and these efforts must continue to move the CMD forward.
State Active Duty (SAD) System as a Force Provider
The state active duty (SAD) system in California has allowed the JFHQ to operate
effectively. The SAD system mimics the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) system, but at the
state level. It provides the JFHQ with the manpower it needs to operate the JFHQ at the
level they are expected to operate to support current mission requirements. This process
allows the CMD to operate at a much higher level that it would otherwise be able to using
the existing federal structure of AGR and technician soldiers.
California Specific Documents
California has a complete O&F manual that identifies, by joint staff section, the
duties and responsibilities of those staff sections. This manual is currently being
exercised by the JFHQ staff in order to validate it. California has a complete joint
operational planning SOP and a JPG SOP. Both documents are currently undergoing
validation by the JFHQ staff in California.
These documents greatly assist the JFHQ transformation and joint planning
processes by providing standardized procedures for the JPG and a breakdown of the each
joint staff section and the functions that are required for each section. These documents
are readily available to members of the JFHQ joint staff and written in an indexed and
easily understood format.
117
Recommendations from the interviews
Analysis of the interviews identified the following recommendations from the
interviewees:
Additional Duty Appointments for JPG Members
Create additional duty assignments for the personnel from the various joint staff
section for the JPG process. This recommendation would add some weight to the JPG
process and send the message that the JFHQ leadership supports the JOPP and JPG
processes. It would also provide a valid basis for comments on the annual evaluations of
those personnel assigned to the JPG.
Have more senior level staff involvement and interaction into the joint planning
process. This satisfies the recommendation made earlier about more senior level
emphasis on the joint planning process and would encourage more consistent
participation and support to the JOPP and JPG processes.
Increase the Planning Capability of the J-5
Provide more support to the J-5 planners or move the operational planning
process over to the planning section in the J-3. Both of these recommendations have
merit and are worthy of consideration. The J-5 section has a limited number of planners
and the operational requirements to do both strategic and operational planning. One fix
would be to increase the number of planners in the J-5, creating a strategic planning
section and an operational planning section. This recommendation would be the most
doctrinally correct solution, keeping the responsibilities to do planning in the J-5 where
they belong.
118
Move Operational Planning to the J-3
Move the operational planning responsibilities to the J-3. The J-3 already has an
operational planning capability in the J-35, operations planning section. Moving the
responsibility for operational planning would relieve the J-5 of that requirement, allowing
them to concentrate fully on strategic planning; and area they have already received
accolades for. It would also place the responsibility to conduct operational planning into
a planning section that already has planning experience, but also place that responsibility
under the direction of the joint staff section that has the requirement to execute those
plans.
Return operational Planning Capability to Service Components
Place a future operations planning capability back into the G-3 and A-3 sections.
This would give the Service Components the ability to, not only provide a planning
capability, but also give them the ability to conduct initial coordination at the onset of
plan execution. It would also provide the J-3 with a surge planning capability during the
executions of plans for state emergencies.
What Do the Results Mean?
The results indicate that there is miscommunication and inconsistency of effort
between the various directorates and the planners when conducting contingency planning.
While there is an almost unanimous consensus on the success of strategic planning at the
JFHQ in California, there is mixed success regarding operational planning.
The most significant fact affecting operational planning problems is a lack of
resources, primarily, lack of available planners in the J-5 and lack of planning support in
119
the form of consistent personnel to man the JPG. Whether this is lack of resources for the
JFHQ as a whole, or in the allocation of those resources across the various directorates is
immaterial. The bottom line is that adequate resourcing can alleviate many of the
problems that the JFHQ in California is experiencing in the area of joint operational
planning.
The good news is that California has a very good strategic plan in place. Part of
that plan requires that the processes involved in the success of the strategic plan are
looked at every year to determine if they meet the strategic goals outlined for the
California Military Department. The problem California is experiencing in the area of
operational planning is being considered by the CMD leadership and will be addressed at
the next strategic planning conference, scheduled for later this year.
Were There Any Unexpected Findings?
Some findings were unexpected. One finding that I found interesting was that
although many of the persons interviewed acknowledged problems with the deliberate
operation planning and JPG process, only two recognized that the number of available
planners in the planning section of the J-5 needed to be increased.
Another unexpected finding was the fact that while nearly all of the persons
interviewed identified lack of resources or inadequate allocation of resources as a
problem for the operational planning process, none recommended an increase in
personnel for the planning section of the J-5. Only three acknowledged that the planning
section within the J-5 is being challenged by mission creep and competing requirements.
120
Recommendations
This study makes recommendations in the following areas to address and mitigate
the shortfalls and concerns identified earlier:
Lack of published plans
The lack of published plans from the J-5 was identified as the biggest concern for
the JFHQ in California. This paper makes several recommendations to correct this
deficiency.
The lack of plans can be attributed to two general issues, the insufficient planning
capability of the J-5 and insufficient leadership emphasis on the JPG process. The
number of planners currently available in the J-5 is insufficient to adequately address
both strategic and operational panning requirements. This study recommends an increase
in the number of planners assigned to the J-5. Increasing the numbers of planners will
increase the planning capability of the J-5 and allow the directorate to allocate enough
resources to operational plans to correct this planning deficiency.
One of the issues regarding the effectiveness of the JPG process concerns the
lack of commitment of personnel by the various directorates. This study recommends an
approach to the JPG process that involves directing joint staff and special staff sections
involved in the JPG process to assign a planner, in writing on an additional duty
appointment order, from each of those joint staff and special staff sections. This planner
would be the primary point of contact and information source from that staff section to
the JPG and this assignment would remain in effect until the JPG process has concluded
with the submission of a complete plan
121
Lack of Trained Planners
The lack of trained planners is a significant issue in the JFHQ. This study
recommends the JFHQ leadership put more emphasis on formal training for planners and
personnel assigned to the JPG. This emphasis would also include ensuring resources are
available to send personnel needing training in this area to schools.
Currently, the JFHQ staff is using OJT to provide training and experience for
personnel in operational planning. The lack of trained planners has already been
identified as a concern by JFHQ leaders. This lack of personnel trained in operational
planning severely hampers any attempts at OJT for operational planning. This study
recommends that the JFHQ discontinue any OJT programs for operational planners until
sufficient numbers of trained personnel are available to resume this practice.
Organizational Structure and Resource Issues
This study also recommends that the JFHQ leadership in California implement a
cohesive and comprehensive plan to correct the planning deficiencies and set the CMD
up for success in the future. The annual review of the CMD Strategic Plan is an excellent
vehicle to accomplish this recommendation. Part of this plan would recommend taking a
look at the allocation of personnel and resources and comparing them with the goals and
objectives outlined in the California National Guard Strategic Plan to ensure they are
synchronized and re-allocate them to meet the goals of the strategic plan if they are not.
California already reviews their strategic plan annually. This annual review provides the
perfect opportunity to look at this issue and make adjustments.
Another recommendation is that with the increased requirements placed on the
JFHQ staff to support its missions, including the completion of CONPLANS to support
122
state and federal missions, a request be forwarded to NGB for additional resources to
allow for all joint and special staff sections to be fully staffed.
Potential Areas for Further Study
Some recommendations that were not directly addressed in this study but have
significant implications for the success of the JFHQ transformation process deals with a
re-allocation of resources within the JFHQ. Addressing the question of re-allocation of
personnel would require decision makers to be open to ideas that they perhaps have not
considered before.
The first recommendation for further study has to do with re-allocation of
resources and personnel within the JFHQ to determine if they are being used in the most
effective manner. The CMD should complete an assessment of all current personnel
assigned to the JFHQ to find the best solution to this problem.
Another area for further study would be the impact that the transformation process
and joint planning has had on the force providers and field units supporting the process.
Finally, similar studies can be done for other states to determine if the challenges and
successes experienced in California are consistent in other states.
These are just some of the questions this study has raised that could provide areas
for future research.
123
APPENDIX A
Strategic Planning Defined
The interviewees made a distinction between strategic planning and operational
planning. Since operational planning was analyzed earlier in this paper, it is necessary to
analyze strategic planning and the definition used for the purposes of this paper.
The military definition of strategic planning is derived from military theorists Carl
von Clausewitz, who said that strategy is “the use of engagements for the object of war”.
(Clausewitz, 1993, 146) and Basil Liddell Hart, who defined strategy as “The art of
distributing and applying military means to fulfill the ends of policy” (Bartholomees,
2006, 81).
JP 3-0, Joint Operations, defines strategy as “A prudent idea or set of ideas for
employing the instruments of national power in a synchronized and integrated fashion to
achieve theater, national, and/or multinational objectives (JP 3-0, 2006, GL-29). These
strategies integrate national and military objectives (ends), national policies and military
concepts (ways), and national resources and military forces and supplies (means).”
(Bartholomees, 2006, 81). This definition of strategic planning focuses on national issues
and is applicable to military planners at the MACOM level and higher. To adequately
address strategic planning for JFHQ at the state level, a different definition is necessary.
According to the Special Libraries Association (SLA), Strategic planning is a tool
for organizing the present on the basis of the projections of the desired future. That is, a
strategic plan is a road map to lead an organization from where it is now to where it
would like to be in five or ten years (SLA, 1997, 1). This definition best describes the
context for the term used in this paper.
124
The strategic planning at the JFHQ level in California consists of the goals and
objectives designed to move the California Military Department (CMD) forward. The
CMD has a strategic plan that was updated on 16 May 06. The executive summary
outlines the purpose and necessity for this plan. It states:
The Headquarters of the California National Guard and the Military Department of California, following several years of exploring alternative organizational structures and alignments, is now actively transforming to a Joint Force headquarters under a doctrinally accurate organizational structure, that once complete, will afford the State a much greater level of support response from not only the California Military Department and California National Guard, but will deepen the capabilities pool to include Department of Defense assets previously not available to the State. The California Army National Guard is transforming from a strategic reserve force to an operational force, with modular capabilities better suited to meet the federal needs of the United States Army, the needs of the State of California, and to be prepared to operate in a joint environment. The California Air National Guard is transforming from cold-war era missions to future missions including space, cyberspace, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, and increasing the ability of the Air National Guard to operate in a joint environment. The California State Military Reserve is transforming to take a more active role in joint operations and extend the capabilities of the entire Department including both the federal and State missions. The format and process used in updating the California Military Department Strategic Plan is intended to posture the Department to utilize emerging technology and a balanced scorecard7 approach to track progress on the implementation of the plan. (CMD, 2006, 3)
The strategic plan is reviewed annually to ensure the goals and objectives of the
CMD are on track and moving forward. Adjustments are made and new goals are set to
ensure the CMD is able to achieve their strategic objectives.
7 The balanced scorecard is a strategic planning and management system that is used extensively in business and industry, government, and nonprofit organizations worldwide to align business activities to the vision and strategy of the organization, improve internal and external communications, and monitor organization performance against strategic goals. It was originated by Drs. Robert Kaplan (Harvard Business School) and David Norton as a performance measurement framework that added strategic non-financial performance measures to traditional financial metrics to give managers and executives a more 'balanced' view of organizational performance. (balancedscorecard.org, 2008)
125
126
APPENDIX B
US Army Command and General Staff College Title of project: A Case Study Of The Implementation Of Joint Planning In An Organization Undergoing Transformation To Joint Force headquarters In One State. Name of investigator: MAJ Stephen Lind Phone: (559) 647-2549 Name of faculty monitor: LTC Prisco Hernandez PhD Phone: (913) 684-2916 Institutional Affiliation: The researcher is a graduate student in the Master of Military Arts and Science (Joint Planning) degree program at the US Army Command and General Staff College. This research is being conducted in fulfillment of degree requirements at the US Army Command and General Staff College. The following questions will be used during interviews with key personnel within the National Guard Joint Force headquarters in California to answer the following thesis question: What are the most significant challenges to implement a doctrinally correct joint planning process when transforming from a state military headquarters to a Joint Force headquarters in one state? 1. What is/was your position in the Joint Force headquarters during the transformation?
2. How long have/were you been assigned to that position within the Joint Force headquarters? 3. From your perspective as a senior staff officer, how is planning accomplished in the JFHQ? 4. Explain how the transformation to JFHQ has changed the requirements for planning and how that differs from how planning was conducted before the transformation. 5. Please describe from your perspective what process or standards are used in the planning process in your organization? 6. Please describe the actions and efforts taken to train or prepare the people involved in joint planning. First, to prepare you as a director or senior staff officer, then, for the individuals involved in the planning process. 7. When you think about planning in the JFHQ, what works well with the current planning process? What would you change? 8. Now that your organization is well on the road to transformation, what, in retrospect would you do differently to improve the planning process? Do you believe these
127
changes are related only to your organization or are they likely to be applicable to similar organizations? 9. Is there anything you would like to add regarding the conduct of planning before, during, or after the transformation to the JFHQ? 10. Is there anything related to planning in the JFHQ that I might have missed or that you would like to add?.
128
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agency Group 09 (1). National Guard Boss to Espouse Transformation to State Ags. FDCH Regulatory Intelligence Database.
———. National Guard Transformation 'Remarkable,' Chief Says. FDCH Regulatory Intelligence Database.
Balancedscorecard.org, What is the Balanced Scorecard? Document online. Available from http://www.balancedscorecard.org/BSCResources/AbouttheBalancedScorecard/tabid/55/Default.aspx. Internet. Accessed on 25 May 2008
Bartholemees, J Boone Jr., A Survey Of The Theory Of Strategy, U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Policy and Strategy, June 2006, 79-106
California Military Department, 2006, California National Guard Strategic Plan
California Military Department, 2007, Joint Force headquarters Joint Planning Group SOP
California Military Department, Joint Force headquarters, Organizations and Functions Manual, CA-JFHQM 5000-1, June 2007
California Military Department, 2007, Joint Force headquarters Operations Planning Group SOP
Caruso, Lisa, Nancy Ferris, Siobhan Gorman, Shane Harris, Mark Kukis, Katherine M. Peters, and Alina Tugend. 2004. Executive Branch: LT. Gen. H. Steven Blum. Government Executive 36, no. 3; 3 (02/15): 58-58.
Clausewitz, Carl Von. On War. New York, NY: Random House, 1993
Defense Link Online, National Guard Bureau Chief Briefing on the Transforming Roles of the National Guard, 16 May 2003. Document online. Available from http://www.DOD.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030516-0188.html. Internet. Accessed 11 May 2008.
Department of the Army. Operations, FM 3-0, February 2008
———. Army Planning and Orders Production, FM 5-0, January 2005
———. The Way Ahead. Document online. Available from http://www.Army.mil/thewayahead/foreword.html. Internet. Accessed on 25 September 2007
129
Department of Defense. Joint Operation Planning and Execution System (JOPES) Volume II Planning Formats, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual CJCSM 3122.03B, 28 February 2006
———. Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, Joint Publication 1-02, 12 April 2001
———. Joint Operations, Joint Publication 3-0, 17 September 2006
———. Joint Operation Planning, Joint Publication 5-0, 26 December 2006
———. Joint Task Force Planning Guidance and Procedures, Joint Publication 5-00.2, 13 January 1999
Government Accounting Office (1), 2007, Emergency Management Assistance Compact: Enhancing EMAC's Collaborative and Administrative Capacity Should Improve National Disaster Response: GAO-07-854. (06/07): 1.
Government Accounting Office (2), 2007, Guard and Reserve Personnel: Fiscal, Security, and Human Capitol Challenges Should be Considered in Developing a Revised Business Model for the Reserve Component: GAO-07-984. (06/07): 1.
GovTrack.us. S. 3721--109th Congress (2006): Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-372, Internet. Accessed on May 25, 2008
Haskell, Bob. “Blum Addresses the Commanders in Chief,” The On Guard, April 2004, vol XXXII, 5, p. 6.
Kem, Jack D. 2006. Military Transformation: Ends, Ways, and Means. Air & Space Power Journal 20, no. 3 (Fall): 85-93.
Klein, Robert M. 2007. Adaptive Planning: Not your Great Grandfathers Schlieffen Plan. Joint Force Quarterly, issue 45, 2nd quarter: 84-88.
Krauss, W. Fritz, 2008, California Military Department Organizational Charts
McNaugher, Thomas L. 2007. The Real Meaning of Military Transformation. Foreign Affairs 86, no. 1: 140-147.
Meinhart, Richard M., National Military Strategies: 1990 TO 2005, U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Policy and Strategy, June 2006, 303-312
Moniz, Dave, General tells of National Guard's transformation. USA Today. 13 October, 2003, 5
130
National Defense University: Goldwater Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. Document online. Available from http://www.ndu.edu/library/goldnich/goldnich.html, Internet. Accessed on 25 October 2007
National Guard Bureau: About the National Guard. Document online. Available from http://www.ngb.Army.mil/About/default.aspx#, Internet. (accessed on 25 October 2007).
Noonan, Michael P., Mark R. Lewis. 2003. Conquering the Elements: Thoughts on Joint Force (Re) Organization. Parameters: US Army War College 33, no. 3; 3 (Autumn): 31.
Principia Cybernetica: Iterative Process. Document online. Available from http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/asc/ITERAT_PROCE.html, Internet. (accessed on 25 May 2008).
Snook, David L. CW4. The Modernization of the National Guard (1900-1916), Document online. Available from http://www.iowanationalguard.com/museum/ia_history/Modernization.htm, Internet. (accessed 15 March 2008).
———. World War II, Document online. Available from http://www.iowanationalguard.com/museum/ia_history/WW2.htm, Internet. (accessed 15 March 2008).
———. Post World War II Reorganization of the Iowa National Guard, Document online. Available from http://www.iowanationalguard.com/museum/ia_history/Post_WW2_Reorganization.htm,Internet (accessed on 15 March 2008).
Special Libraries Association, Strategic Planning Handbook, Document online. Available from: http://www.sla.org/pdfs/sphand.pdf (04/97), Internet. Accessed on 14 May 2008
Stephenson, Scott. 2006. Clouds and Arrows: Visualizing the Dynamics of Transformation. Military Review 86, no. 2: 95-99.
Woodring, William O. 2006, The Role Of The Army Force Generation Model In Preparing The National Guard And Reserve For Future Operations, CGSC MMAS,
131
FURTHER READING
Agency Group 09 (3). Qdr Approves Joint Force headquarters Concept. FDCH Regulatory Intelligence Database.
Army National Guard, Constitutional Charter of the Guard. Document online. Available from http://www.arng.Army.mil/constitution.aspx. Internet. Accessed on 25 September 2007
Bates, James C. 2004. JOPES and Joint Force Deployments. Army Logistician 36, no. 3: 30-35.
Blum, LTG H. Steven, Chief NGB, National Guard Magazine, Vol 60, February 2006
Chapman, Suzann. 2003. State Guards Move to Joint HQs. Air Force Magazine 86, no. 6; 6 (06): 9.
Cimbala, Stephen J. 2005. Transformation in Concept and Policy. JFQ: Joint Force Quarterly, no. 38 (Summer): 28-33.
Department of the Army. Army Strategic Planning Guidance 2005, The Army Plan, Washington, DC
Department of Defense. Army Campaign Plan Change 1. Washington, DC: Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3, 27 October 2004
Department of Defense. Army Campaign Plan Change 4. Washington, DC: Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, GS, 2006
Department of Defense. Homeland Security, Joint Publication 3-26, 2 August 2005
Henry, Ryan. 2006. Defense Transformation and the 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review. Parameters: US Army War College 35, no. 4: 5-15.
Holloman, Kimberly. 2007. Stove Pipes or Networked Organizations? Information Sharing within and across Military Organizations: The Challenges of Military Transformation. Conference Papers -- International Studies Association: 1.
Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff. Army Mobilization Operations Planning and Execution System, Draft. Washington, DC: Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, 2006
National Guard Bureau: Army National Guard. White Paper, Strategic Reserve to operational Force. Arlington, VA: Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-5, Strategic Plans and Policy, 2005
132
St. Laurent, Janet A. 2006. Military Transformation: Additional Actions Needed by U.S. Strategic Command to Strengthen Implementation of Its Many Missions and New Organization: GAO-06-847. GAO Reports (09/08): 1.
Svitak, Amy. 2003. Guard transformation plan eliminates state headquarters. Army Times 63, no. 45; 45 (06/02): 26.
Zimmerman, Douglas K. 2004. Understanding the Standing Joint Force headquarters. Military Review 84, no. 4; 4: 28-32.
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST
Combined Arms Research Library U.S. Army Command and General Staff College 250 Gibbon Ave. Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027-2314 Defense Technical Information Center/OCA 825 John J. Kingman Rd., Suite 944 Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6218 LTC Prisco R. Hernandez PhD CGSS USACGSC 1 Reynolds Ave. Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027-1352 Dr. Stephen D. Coats PhD DJIMO USACGSC 1 Reynolds Ave. Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027-1352 Mr. Stephen G. Whitworth DJIMO USACGSC 1 Reynolds Ave. Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027-1352
133